Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ross and Cromarty (Dornie Bridge, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

NETLEY ABBEY (RIGHT OF WAY).

Mr. MORLEY: I beg to present a petition from 450 tradesmen, fishermen and seamen of the village of Netley Abbey, Hampshire, humbly asking to be granted a permanent right of way across the Hard at Netley Abbey for the purpose of carrying on their various callings of tradesmen, fishermen, seamen, etc. This right of way is absolutely necessary to them in the pursuit of their livelihood. This right of way is now threatened, and they beg that this House will secure for them that permanent right of way.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

CAPTURED BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the names and particulars of British subjects who have been kidnapped by Chinese bandits during the previous three months; and have any of these British subjects been released by their captors?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Early in June the town of Shekichen, in south-west Honan, was captured by brigands, who made prisoners of the local missionaries of the China Inland Mission comprising Mr.
and Mrs. E. Weller, Mr. and Mrs. J. Walker (with their baby) and Miss Brook. The missionaries are reported to have been well treated by their captors. They were all released, with the exception of Mr. Weller, after some ten days' captivity; Mr. Weller was set at liberty four or five days later.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether ransom was demanded or whether they were released unconditionally?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

SITUATION.

Mr. SMITHERS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the House the latest available information as to the situation that has arisen between the Chinese and the Soviet authorities and as to the ultimatum delivered by the Soviet Government with regard to the Chinese Eastern Railway?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I regret that I can add little beyond what is appearing in the press to the statement which I made on July 15th in reply to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo reports that, owing to the cutting of the telegraph line, news from Harbin is very scanty. I have telegraphed to His Majesty's Minister at Peking asking for the latest information.

Mr. SMITHERS: Do not these events give further evidence of the unwillingness or the inability of the Soviet Government to carry out their agreements?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information.

SHANGHAI ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKING.

Miss WILKINSON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Shanghai municipal council is proposing to sell their electricity undertaking for about £10,000,000, of which under £4,000,000 represents book value and over £6,000,000 goodwill, and that this goodwill is largely the result of expenditure borne by the British taxpayer; and whether, if the sale proceeds, he will invite the council to contribute £3,000,000 to that expenditure?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The ratepayers of the International Settlement at Shanghai have approved the proposal of the council to accept an offer of 81,000,000 taels (approximately £10,000,000 sterling) for the municipal electricity undertaking. I have no information as to how much of this sum is represented by book value and how much by goodwill, nor what part, if any, of the goodwill value is the result of expenditure borne by the British taxpayer. I sympathise with the view that the residents of Shanghai should bear a proper share of the cost of their own defence, but it would obviously be improper for an international municipality on Chinese soil to contribute towards the cost of the British Army.

Miss WILKINSON: Has not the Shanghai Defence Force, which was sent out by the previous Government at the request of the International Municipal Council, been responsible for giving that security which made for this goodwill, and ought they not, therefore, to contribute something towards it?

Major COLFOX: Do the Government party now realise that the sending of this expeditionary force to Shanghai was necessary?

HON. MEMBERS: Not necessarily.

Mr. SPEAKER: A good many supplementary questions have been put from time to time which are quite out of order. I would remind hon. Members that there are very strict Rules regarding the putting of supplementary questions, and I shall have to apply the Rules more strictly if such questions continue to be put.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

SUEZ CANAL.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is prepared to propose that the Suez Canal shall be placed under the control of the League of Nations?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Free navigation of the Suez Canal is already provided for by the Convention of 1888. His Majesty's Government see no reason to propose the modification of this arrangement.

YUGOSLAVIA AND BULGARIA.

Mr. AYLES: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the increasing unrest in the Balkans, with its menace to European peace, he will, in accordance with Article XI of the Covenant of the League, use his position as a member of the Council of the League to get a conference of the Balkan nations, with a view to the settlement of the major outstanding problems between those countries?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: If my hon. Friend has had in mind the recent tension along the Yugoslav-Bulgarian frontier I prefer to assume for the present that the two Governments concerned will be able to remove it by direct negotiations without the intervention of the League.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 3. and 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, in connection with any negotiations which may take place with the Soviet Government for the renewal of diplomatic relations with Russia, undertakings will be sought to ensure the cessation of Communist propaganda in Great Britain and in British Dominions by the Communist International, the Comitern, and the other Communist organisations which are controlled by the Soviet Government;
(2) whether his attention has been called to the plan of campaign outlined by M. Manuilski, a prominent Soviet official, in the State newspaper "Pravda" for provoking Communist; disturbances in India; and whether, in negotiating as to the guarantees to be given by the Soviet Government against interference in the internal affairs of the British Empire, as a condition of diplomatic recognition, assurances will be asked for as to the cessation of hostile propaganda, articles in the Soviet State press, and hostile utterances by Soviet officials?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: My attention has been drawn to an article signed by Monsieur Manuilski which appeared in instalments in the "Pravda" for 14th June, 15th June, 16th June and 18th June, and also to a further article, not signed by Monsieur Manuilski, which appeared in the same paper on 2nd and
3rd July. These articles, which I presume to be those to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, contained a general review of the Communist movement and reference was also made to India. As regards the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of propaganda, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on this point made by the Prime Minister in the course of the Debate on 2nd July.

Sir F. HALL: Seeing that the Government intend to renew diplomatic relations with Russia, may I ask what guarantees they intend to press for in order that the regulations may not again be broken?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think it would be highly undesirable to prejudge the negotiations.

Mr. SANDERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is worth while to inquire into the relations existing between a notorious Communist organisation in Battersea and a local Conservative association?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs whether, in the course of negotiations with the Soviet representatives preliminary to the restoration of diplomatic relations, he will ask for the release of the hundreds of Baptist pastors and teachers now suffering imprisonment or banishment?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot question the right of the Soviet Government to exercise jurisdiction within their own territory. I would, however, in the event of the machinery of diplomatic relations being re-established be prepared to make an appeal to the Soviet Government in the cases referred to by the hon. Member.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also recollect the unfortunate fate of the humble servants of the men who were prosecuted by the Russian Government when the mission was withdrawn?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have no doubt at all that all those points will be brought to the attention of those who come to negotiate.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Will the Foreign Secretary bring to the notice of the Soviet representatives when the negotiations are opened that many people who would otherwise be favourably disposed towards a resumption of diplomatic relations will very seriously think about it?

Major WOOD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that great injury will be done to the herring-fishing industry if those engaged in it are kept in uncertainty until October or November as to the resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia; and whether he can see his way to make an early announcement to guide the industry?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot commit myself to any specific date for making an announcement about Anglo-Soviet relations; but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the industry for which he speaks, and all others whose interests are in question, will receive the sympathetic consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the suggestion in the question well founded that diplomatic relations will not be resumed until Parliament meets again in the autumn?

Oral Answers to Questions — CURAÇAO (VENEZUELAN RAIDS).

Mr. ALLEN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether during the recent raid by Venezuelan bandits on the Dutch island of Curacao, the property of any British subject was damaged or destroyed?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: So far as my information goes the answer is in the negative.

Mr. ALLEN: Is not this raid an example of the results which follow an over-optimistic reduction of the Colonial defence force?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS (DENMARK).

Mr. ALLEN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the proposed complete disarmament of Denmark, this country is by the covenant of the League of Nations or by any other international instrument under any liability, direct or contingent,
individual or collective, to assist, protect, or defend Denmark in the event of an attack on that country by a third Power?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Apart from the Covenant of the League of Nations there is no international instrument imposing a legal liability upon this country to assist or protect Denmark.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Denmark is under treaty obligations to defend the Straits, and how can she carry out her treaty obligations if she is allowed to disarm?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that that arises out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.

Mr. MAXTON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had conversations with Mohammed Mahouméd Pasha with a view to a settlement of the outstanding difficulties between Britain and Egypt; and whether he is in a position to make any statement to the House?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on the 10th July, I have had a conversation with the Egyptian Prime Minister, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement to the House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that that does not mean that anything in the nature of negotiations are going on as distinguished from conversations?

Mr. HENDERSON: Nothing must be added to the reply that I have given, that I have had a conversation.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Before any treaty is signed with Egypt, will it be possible to ask for a free election of the Egyptian Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. MAXTON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he proposes any change in the secret service system hitherto adopted by his Department?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have had this matter under consideration, but have not yet reached any final decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENUNCIATION OF WAR (TREATY).

Mr. AYLES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to indicate our sincere desire to abolish war, he will consider an early withdrawal of the reservations made by the late Government to the treaty for the outlawry of war?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No reservations were made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in concluding the Multilateral Treaty for the Renunciation of War My hon. Friend no doubt has in mind the diplomatic correspondence preceding the conclusion of the treaty which was issued in two White Papers—United States, Nos. 1 and 2 of 1928. I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Commander WILLIAMS: When did the Foreign Secretary first discover that there were no reservations?

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATIES.

Mr. COCKS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government intend to re-adopt the practice inaugurated by the last Labour Government by which all treaties were to be laid upon the Table of the House in order to allow an opportunity, if required, for discussion before ratification, and by which all agreements with foreign Governments were to be made public?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. All agreements with foreign Governments have always been made public, but I am prepared to restore the practice of 1924 and to lay on the Table of the House, prior to ratification, those treaties which have to be ratified.

Mr. COCKS: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend docs not intend in the future to be bound by the mistaken policy of his predecessor?

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (RELATIONSHIP).

Mr. WISE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether his Department has received any communication from the French or German Governments concerning the proposals of M. Briand for a United States of Europe; and whether he will consider the publieation of an analysis of these and other analogous proposals for closer economic and political unity in Europe made since the War by authorities of recognised international standing?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am having the suggestion contained in the second part of the question examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECT'S DEATH, HAVANA.

Mr. EDE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any person has been arrested for the killing of Thomas Hunt, in Havana, on or about the 8th June, 1929; and, if so, when is the trial of such person likely to take place?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: It is not clear from the information at present at my disposal whether the murderer has been arrested, but I have telegraphed to His Majesty's Minister at Havana regarding that point and the question of the date of the trial.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY (FOREIGN TRAWLERS, MORAY FIRTH).

Major WOOD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the great destruction of fishermen's nets and lines by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth; whether he has any scheme to protect fishermen from the loss they are yearly sustaining from this cause; and whether he will, consider the advisability of bringing the matter before the League of Nations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I have been asked to reply. From time to time complaints have been made of the damage done to cod nets in the Moray Firth by trawlers. Information has been given to the countries whose trawlers frequent the
Firth as to the areas in which the fishing is carried on, and requests for their assistance in warning trawlers to avoid such nets have been sympathetically met. I am informed that the fishermen do not always take necessary precautions as to lighting and watching their nets in accordance with the Fishery Board's Regulations, although the Board at every opportunity draws their attention to the need for such precautions. I am looking into the matter further to see whether anything more can be done.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that legislation was passed by this House to deal with this matter, and that that legislation was nullified by the action of the Foreign Office; and will he make representations to the Foreign Office that it is up to them to do something to prevent the continuance of this damage?

Mr. ADAMSON: Foreign trawlers cannot be prohibited from trawling in this area, but that is a matter which I understand is under negotiation, and the Fishery Board are meantime, as I have already pointed out, considering whether more effective protective measures can be devised.

Major WOOD: Is it not a question for the League of Nations; and can I have an answer to the last part of my question, which has never been dealt with at all?

Mr. MACLEAN: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that in the Moray Firth one or two additional small Admiralty boats would effect a change in regard to foreign trawlers, who are destroying the Moray Firth fishermen's trawls and nets?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CARIBBEAN SEA (BASES).

Mr. MANDER: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it forms any part of the policy of the Government to establish naval bases in the Caribbean Sea?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The answer is in the negative.

SUBMARINES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position with regard to our proposal, now supported by the American Government, for the illegalising of the submarine by mutual agreement; and whether he is considering the renewal of this proposal at the next conference on naval armaments?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The position is that the declaration of the British Empire delegation made during the Washington Conference, 1921, and since confirmed, remains the opinion of His Majesty's Government, but that, until other nations accede to this opinion, no agreement is possible. As regards the second part of the question, the possibility of reaching agreement on this matter is constantly borne in mind by His Majesty's Government, and a re-statement of His Majesty's Government's opinion will be made at the first favourable moment.

Mr. ALBERY: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to discontinue, for the present, the laying down of any fresh submarines?

Mr. ALEXANDER: In the present state of international opinion on the subject, the answer is in the negative. As the hon. Gentleman knows, His Majesty's Government have repeatedly offered to discontinue the use of submarines if other Powers would agree, and they still occupy that position.

CHATHAM DOCKYARD.

Mr. MARKHAM: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the amount allocated to yard wages in the Chatham Dockyard during the years 1928–29 and 1929s–30; and what number of discharges will result owing to the reduction approved by Parliament in March last?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Hall): The amount voted by Parliament for dockyard wages in the home yards for 1929 is £98,700 less than in the previous year, but, in allocating the total amount between the various yards, the Admiralty have assigned to Chatham rather more than in the previous year. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. MARKHAM: Will the First Lord of the Admiralty look severely on the over-spending which has resulted in so many dismissals from these yards?

Mr. HALL: That question is receiving the attention of my right hon. Friend.

SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:

23.—To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of the submarines of this year's building programme have not yet been laid down; and, if not, whether he is in a position to make any announcement on the matter?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have been asked to postpone this question. May I put it down for Wednesday of next week?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would rather reply to it now, as I propose, with the permission of the hon. Members concerned, to answer with it Question No. 28 and also Question No. 45, addressed to the Prime Minister, to which I have been asked to reply.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to carry out the full naval programme of 1928 as regards all classes of vessels?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what modifications he proposes in this year's war-shipbuilding programme, in view of the forthcoming conference on naval armaments?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 10th July [OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 855]. No submarines of the 1929 building programme have yet been laid down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will my right hon. Friend say definitely when he expects to be in a position to make a further announcement, if I repeat the question later?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is difficult to give an actual date. The Prime Minister intends to make an announcement on the whole question, including the naval programme and other
matters, and I could not give the actual date without consultation with my right hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will put a question down when my right hon. Friend is in a position to answer it.

DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will see, in the event of discharges taking place in Devonport dockyard, that every step is taken to provide the men concerned with alternative work?

Mr. G. HALL: The whole question of future work in all the Royal dockyards is being carefully considered by the Government.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of discharges that have taken place in Devonport dockyard since the 31st May last; and whether further reductions are contemplated in the near future?

Mr. HALL: The number of workmen who have been discharged from Devon-port dockyard since the 31st May is 30. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the First Lord gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain W. Hall) on the 4th July (OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 248).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the same time that these discharges have been taking place, a certain number of miners have been imported into Devonport; and will he, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, survey the whole unemployment situation, so that men are not discharged from Devonport at the same time as other people are imported into the town?

Mr. HALL: That, of course, depends upon the trade of the men transferred. It certainly will receive the attention of my right hon. Friend.

SUBMARINE DISASTER (DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many dependants are left as a result of the recent submarine disaster; and what arrangements his Department is making for the pensions to which they will be entitled?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is not yet practicable to state how many dependants are left as the result of the recent submarine disaster, but the necessary forms of application for pension were despatched to the widows of the officer and all married ratings on the 10th July. Up to date, pensions have been awarded to the widows of 14 ratings, and the remaining cases will be dealt with immediately the forms are returned to the Admiralty with the necessary particulars. I may remind the hon. Member that, in order, so far as practicable, to avoid undue hardship, payment of a qualifying allotment and of full marriage allowance is made to the widow of a rating already in receipt of marriage allowance for a period of four weeks subsequent to the death of her husband.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. LAMBERT: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the further construction of the battleship base at Singapore; and, if not, when such decision may be expected?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have nothing to add to the reply (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 499–500) given by the Prime Minister on 8th July to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone).

Mr. LAMBERT: When may a decision be expected?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the Prime Minister explained on the 8th that there were very important and difficult matters to be taken into account because of the way matters have to be arranged, and it is hardly fair to press for a date, especially when the right hon. Member considers that the Dominions have to be consulted.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the decision be made before the Summer Recess?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I certainly could not say that on behalf of my Department. It affects other Departments as well, and I could not give a date without consultation with them.

Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will it not cost as much to abandon the dock as to carry it out?

Mr. LAMBERT: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for War the total estimated cost of the military defences necessitated by
the construction of a battleship base at Singapore; and the estimated number of the garrison for which these estimates provide?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): All questions in connection with the Singapore Base are at present under the consideration of the Government, and, pending a decision, I would prefer, with the right hon. Member's permission, to postpone a statement on the point.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman answered the question on the Paper: what is the total estimated cost of the military defences?

Mr. SHAW: I think the answer I gave really covers that point The right hon. Member asks the total estimated cost of the military defences necessitated by the construction of a battleship base at Singapore. Surely the estimated cost will depend on the size of the base and the policy adopted with regard to it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are not the figures in the Army Estimates?

Commander WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of the garrison?

Mr. SHAW: I do not think that arises out of the question.

BANDS (CIVIL ENGAGEMENTS).

Mr. AYLES: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the growing unemployment amongst musicians, he will prohibit for the time being naval bands accepting civil engagements?

Mr. G. HALL: Article 776 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions ensures that there is no unfair competition with civilian bands, and I am not prepared to prohibit Naval bands from accepting civil engagements which do not interfere with their Service duties.

Mr. AYLES: Will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from the men who are suffering so heavily if one is appointed to wait upon him?

Mr. HALL: I am advised that there is no very great suffering now. I think I ought to refer to King's Regulation 776,
which gives the terms and conditions on which these bands are now engaged. I will send a copy to the hon. Member.

Mr. DAY: Do these naval ratings receive any extra pay for the work they do?

Mr. HALL: I have been advised that a portion of the amount that has been set aside goes towards what is called the band fund, and the remainder of the money is distributed among the musicians.

PRIZE FUND.

Mr. KELLY: 32.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been any disposal of the balance of the Naval Prize Fund; if so, what was the amount; when the distribution took place; and to whom such grants were made?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Since the passing of the Naval Prize Act, 1928, grants amounting to £142,000 have been made from the residue of the Prize Fund to Naval and Marine Charities. Details of the grants are given in Admiralty Fleet Order 590 of 8th March, 1929, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. In addition a sum of £15,632 has been settled in trust to establish a scheme for medical assistance to the wives and families of members of the Fleet at Malta.

Mr. KELLY: Does that dispose of the whole of the fund?

Mr. ALEXANDER: My hon. Friend is probably aware of the discussions which took place last year when the Bill was passing through the House. There is a very small surplus in hand which it would be unwise to dissipate until we are certain that we shall have no further claims.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to recover from the Treasury the amount taken over by them and place it to the credit or at the disposal of the Naval Benevolent Trust and other charities?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am not sure that that strictly arises. When the money was paid over the Treasury also accepted liability for any other payments. If the hon. Member is anxious to know about the future of that particular money, he had better apply to the Treasury.

ADMIRALTY INSTRUCTIONS.

Mr. KELLY: 33.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any new instructions have been issued by the Admiralty regarding redress of wrongs and remarks or criticisms on superiors; and if copies of such instructions are available to Members of this House?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As promised to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull by my predecessor, in answer to his question on 25th March last (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 2057), the revised instructions on this matter were published to the Fleet on 28th March. They were made available to the Press, and were quoted in full in some journals and commented upon freely in the public Press generally. I will send the hon. Member a copy for convenience of reference.

PETTY OFFICERS AND LEADING SEAMEN.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 34.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the order as to the reduction of port establishment of leading seamen and petty officers will effect a reduction in the numbers voted under Vote A, Naval Vote?

Mr. G. HALL: The answer is in the negative. The reduction in petty officers and leading seamen is the result of the reduction in this year's Vote A as compared with last year's Vote A.

INVALIDED RATINGS (PENSION CLAIMS).

Sir B. FALLE: 35.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that for the calendar year 1928, 1,081 ratings were invalided from the Royal Navy and only 130 were found to be attributable to service, he will approve of the institution of an independent appeal tribunal where ratings who are invalided and who consider that their invaliding disability is attributable to service may state their case?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As the hon. Baronet is aware, very careful consideration was given to this question by the late Government and a very detailed reply was given to the hon. Baronet Himself by my predecessor on 18th February, 1926. No evidence has been submitted to me that the decision then made was not well founded.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the) late Government granted certain important concessions but not an independent tribunal? Will he improve on that state of affairs?

Mr. ALEXANDER: May I remind the hon. Baronet that he asked the First Lord on that date whether a decision had been reached regarding the independent appeal tribunal?

Sir B. FALLE: No answer was made to the question.

Mr. ALEXANDER: If the hon. Baronet has any more evidence than was submitted to the Admiralty in 1926 he had better send it to them.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman completely identify himself with the policy of his predecessor in this respect?

GENERAL MESSING SYSTEM.

Sir B. FALLE: 36.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the payment of 5 per cent. to the ship's fund on the value of goods purchased from the shore for general messes has been abolished; whether he is aware that this rule was enforced when petty officers and men were victualled themselves on the standard-ration system; and whether, in view of the fact that it only costs 1s. 4d. per day to victual ratings on the general messing system, he will re-impose the 5 per cent. in order that the ship's funds shall not be at a loss through the paymaster in charge of general messes refusing to deal at the naval canteens?

Mr. G. HALL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is not proposed to depart from the decision which was arrived at after full consideration of all the circumstances.

COMMUNIST LEAFLETS, OSLO.

Sir F. HALL: 37.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that during the recent visit of British warships to Oslo Communist leaflets were distributed among the crews urging men to join in the revolutionary demonstrations which are being organised by the Communist International in a number of cities on 1st August, International Red Day; and whether any Report concerning
the incident has been received from the officer in command of the visiting fleet?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Flag Officer's Report has not yet been received.

Sir F. HALL: As the answer to the first part is in the affirmative, and as 1st August is so very near at hand, may I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman is taking to obtain a report from the flag officer?

Mr. ALEXANDER: We have taken the usual steps of requesting the flag officer's report, and our request will, no doubt, be treated with the usual despatch.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know when he gets it?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (HAMDI BEG BABAN'S CLAIM).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the petition and statement of his case against the Iraqi Government from Hamdi Beg Baban, whether the confiscations of which he complained have been considered; and whether any steps have been taken to get at the root of this affair?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I have been asked to reply. As the history of this claim is somewhat complex and the answer, therefore, necessarily of some length, I propose, with my right hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As the matter in question seems to involve a serious injustice, would the hon. Gentleman see me about the matter personally?

Following is the answer:

The claim of Hamdi Beg Baban against the British Government in respect of the occupation of and damage to his property in Bagdad during the late War has been the subject of most careful consideration. Although an offer which was made to
him and a joint claimant was considered fair and reasonable and as such was accepted by the other claimant, in view of Hamdi Beg Baban's refusal to accept it, it has now been agreed with him as a special case that his claim shall be submitted to arbitration at Bagdad before a British judge or official, to be nominated by agreement between the parties. The terms of reference have been agreed but the arbitration has so far not taken place, partly because Hamdi Beg, for the purpose of prosecuting his claim, has applied for an advance in excess of the amount originally awarded to him—an application which had to be refused—and partly because he requested that the arbitration should be deferred until after September next.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).

Major G. POLE: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any reports from Kavirondo, in Kenya Colony, of the employment of young children in the gangs of labourers called out for the purpose of keeping public roads in order; whether these reports stated that these children work without any limitation of hours and without any pay for their labour; and whether he will consult the governor as to the advisability of making this practice illegal?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Lunn): My Noble Friend has received no such reports, but he will make inquiry of the acting-Governor of Kenya as to the facts. As regards the last part of the question, the power to call out labour for work on roads is limited to able-bodied men, and the employment of children in the place of men so called out is already an offence against the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

Mr. MANDER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to set up a national industrial council as recommended by the Industrial Conference of 1019 and recently by the Mond-Turner Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): As the hon.
Member is doubtless aware, the recent developments in this matter to which he refers have been directed towards the establishment of a joint body nationally representative of employers' and workers' organisations by direct negotiation. In these circumstances, it is clearly right that we should await the result of the active discussions which, I understand, are taking place.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister for what reason the Government have directed the Post Office to refuse all advertisements in connection with the sale or manufacture of beer or spirits, whereby a loss of £4,000 per annum will be occasioned to the revenue; and whether the Post Office have been directed to refuse advertisements of any other commodities which are legally manufactured in Great Britain?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): The Government considered it inexpedient that advertisements should be displayed in Post Office publications or in Post Office properties which are obnoxious to a considerable section of the public. So far as I am aware, the question has not arisen as regards other commodities.

Sir W. DAVISON: By what authority have the Government issued this direction to the Post Office with regard to a commodity legally manufactured in this country?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Baronet must realise that the advertisements of this commodity were forbidden by the Post Office from 1912 until only three years ago. The authority on which we have acted is the authority that was acted on by the Government which the hon. Baronet supported.

Sir W. DAVISON: If previous Governments acted without authority, is that any reason why this Government should?

Sir BASIL PETO: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the same self-denying ordinance is carried out in all Government Departments?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think the hon. Gentleman must ask other Government Departments for an answer to that question.

Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that this question is put to the Prime Minister expressly to find out the information for which I ask?

Mr. PEAKER: There is no point of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRISTAN DA CUNHA.

Mr. SOURR: 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how often the island of Tristan da Cunha is visited officially; what arrangements are made to meet any emergency, medical or other call, from the inhabitants; and if there is a wireless station on the island?

Mr. LUNN: There is no regular programme of visits to Tristan da Cunha. His Majesty's Government, however, have endeavoured to arrange that at least one steamer carrying supplies etc. calls at the island each year. On learning in April last of a threatened food shortage, His Majesty's Government provided the funds necessary to ensure the call at Tristan of a vessel carrying relief stores. I understand that a wireless apparatus, capable of receiving messages from England, Buenos Aires and New York, was installed on the island last February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (MUI TSAI SYSTEM).

Mr. DAY: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement upon the Report received by his Department from the Governor of Hong Kong on the question of the abolition of the system of mui tsai?

Mr. LUNN: I am not yet in a position to make a statement as my Noble Friend has not yet completed his consideration of this problem, but a full statement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. DAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that this statement is very long overdue, and cannot he give the House a date when a statement can be made?

Mr. LUNN: I will inform the hon. Member as soon as possible when I am able to make a definite statement upon the Report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible to have the Report from the Governor of Hong Kong laid on the Table of the House before publishing it?

Mr. LUNN: I will consider that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL MEDICAL AND VETERINARY SERVICES.

Lieut.- Colonel Sir LAMBERT WARD: 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has arrived at any decision with regard to the adoption of the Lovat Report (medical and veterinary services)?

Mr. LUNN: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to the Report—Command 3261—of the Committee which was appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Lovat to inquire into the organisation of the Colonial Veterinary Services. I am unable to add anything to the reply which was given to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) on the 8th July.

Sir L. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when the Government will have arrived at a decision on this subject?

Mr. LUNN: I think that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the reply which was given to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans, he will see what is the position and how soon he may expect to have a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH LIGHTS SERVICE.

Mr. KELLY: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether negotiations have been concluded for the transfer of the Irish lights service to the Free State?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Pon-sonby): Negotiations on this matter are still in progress.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any likelihood of a conclusion being reached in the near future?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am afraid I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what answer has been returned to the communication from the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia protesting against the proposed abolition of Imperial Preference to that Dominion, and, in particular, as to the serious effect on Australian industry which will be occasioned by the abolition of the existing preferences on sugar, dried fruits, and wine?

Mr. PONSONBY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) on the 15th instant.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that communications have appeared in the Press as to the nature of the telegram to the Prime Minister of this country, and does he not think the House of Commons have a right to know what reply has been sent to this communication.?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, Sir; I do not think that that alters in any way the sense of the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

FLYING CLUBS AND AERODROMES (GRANTS).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether His Majesty's Government proposes to increase the number of existing subsidies given to civilian flying clubs; and whether it will take into consideration the grant of financial assistance towards the establishment of aerodromes in the chief industrial and commercial centres of the country which do not possess them at the present time?

Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first part of the question, the financial provision voted by the House for 1929 for grants to light aeroplane clubs would not allow of the number of subsidised clubs being increased. As regards the second part, a governing motive of the scheme under which grants are to be made to National Flying Services, Limited, is the provision of aerodromes at a considerable number of centres throughout the country.

AIRSHIPS (TRIAL FLIGHTS).

Sir FRANK NELSON: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, if an opportunity can be afforded to Members of this House to participate in the trial flights of the airships R 100 and R 101?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am advised that it is undesirable that other than official passengers should be carried on the trial flights of the airships.

AERODROMES (SHEFFIELD).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether in view of the fact that there are no nearer aerodromes to Sheffield than Cranwell, Manchester, Nottingham, and Leeds, he will consider the possibility of granting financial assistance towards the establishment of an aerodrome at Sheffield, especially in view of the constitution of a flying club in the city and of the value which such an aerodrome would be to the commercial development of the town?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Many towns are giving active consideration to the provision of aerodromes for public use without financial assistance from the central Government, and I am not aware on what grounds Sheffield could claim exceptional treatment. I agree that an aerodrome should prove of value for the commercial development of the Sheffield area, and I should hope that this will lead the city council to provide the necessary funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE DISPLAY, HENDON.

Mr. LEES: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what has been the actual cost to the nation of the Royal Air Force display at Hendon on Saturday, 13th July, 1929?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The cost of all special arrangements and facilities for spectators at the display is met out of the receipts. The ordinary running expense of personnel and material employed in the display is not segregated from the normal service expenditure on training, of which it forms part.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Mr. BROOKE: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the delay at the Balloch railway station level crossing and the consequent hold up of traffic; and what action he proposes to take to deal with the matter?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The attention of my Department has been called to the delay caused to traffic at the Balloch railway station level crossing. I understand that the delay occurs mainly during a short period in the year when long excursion trains are run, and that the railway companies are endeavouring to find a way to overcome this difficulty. I may add that I am prepared to consider whether assistance can be given by a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of any definite scheme for the elimination of this level crossing which the highway authority may wish to submit.

Major CARVER: 87.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in the Government's proposal for unemployment relief schemes, it is intended to include proposals for the closing of level crossings, particularly those situated within town and city boundaries; and whether it is intended that any cost incurred in providing alternative routes (by bridges, etc.) shall be borne out of the Road Fund?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 9th July to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman), of which I am sending him a copy.

Major CARVER: Will the hon. Member take into consideration the claims of Hull in this matter, as it has suffered more than any other place from this grievance?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly.

ROAD TOLLS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of private tolls on main roads and all other roads in the country; and what action, if any, he proposes to take towards their abolition?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The latest particulars regarding toll roads and bridges are given in paragraphs 59–61 of the Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund for the year 1927–28, where the number of toll roads is given as 55 and the number of toll bridges as 88. Local authorities can look for assistance from the Road Fund towards the expenditure they propose to incur on approved schemes for freeing or superseding toll roads and bridges, and several negotiations of this character are now in progress.

LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAY (OPEN DOORS).

Mr. GOSSLING: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that trains upon the Underground Railway frequently run with the doors open; and if he will take immediate steps to remedy this danger by making it compulsory for the railway company to instal guards upon these trains or any other means to safeguard the travelling public?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I believe it occasionally happens that railway carriage doors are left open, but my information is that the railway companies concerned already adopt measures to secure that doors left open are closed as soon as possible. If, however, the hon. Member would give me any specific information he may have of failure in this respect I will look further into the matter. I may say that so far as I have been able to ascertain no accidents from this cause are known to have occurred recently.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (FIRST-AID OUTFITS).

Mr. DAY: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the number of road accidents which have recently happened to public service vehicles; and whether he will consider advising all local authorities to make it a condition of licensing public service vehicles that they are fitted with an equipment of first-aid outfits?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not aware that there has been any noticeable increase in the number of accidents to public service vehicles. It might be regarded as unreasonable to make the carrying of first-aid outfits compulsory for all public service vehicles, as, for example, in the case of omnibuses in
large towns, and in any case the matter is one for consideration in connection with general legislation rather than with the conditions to be attached to licences.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider suggestions of the local authorities that this method be adopted instead of making it compulsory?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly. I am always willing to consider suggestions of local authorities.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of having safety glass in these public vehicles?

Mr. MORRISON: I shall be pleased to consider any relevant suggestions which may be advanced.

PORTS AND HARBOURS (TRAFFIC DIVERSION).

Mr. PYBUS: 64.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, owing to the post-War railway amalgamations, certain ports and harbours may be considered by the management of such railways to be redundant and that the artificial diversion of traffic from one port to another, however desirable in the interests of economy, is nevertheless threatening the livelihood of local workmen, shopkeepers, and hotel proprietors; and, in view of the danger to the property and occupation of people other than those employed by the railway companies, will he consider legislation to make decisions of this character public, subject to ample notice and the approval of the appropriate Government Department?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not altogether clear what the hon. Member has in mind when he refers to artificial diversion of traffic from one port to another, or in what respects he considers that the choice of ports for particular traffics should be controlled. If, however, he will give me further details of his proposals I will consider them.

Major COLFOX: Does the hon. Member consider it wise thus by legislation to entrench vested interests?

ROADS, BRECONSHIRE AND RADNORSHIRE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been
called to the slippery condition of some of the tarred roads in Breconshire and Radnorshire, particularly on steep hills; and, in view of the many accidents of a serious nature that have occurred recently, can steps he taken to improve the condition of these roads?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not aware that exceptional conditions prevail in these two counties. In March last my Department issued a Circular to all local authorities tendering advice and recommendations on the subject of slippery roads and I am forwarding a copy to my hon. Friend.

MOTOR DRIVERS (EFFICIENCY TEST).

Sir F. NELSON: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider initiating an efficiency test before motor-driving licences are issued; and can he state whether any other country in Europe issues such licences without a driving test?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no power to make applicants for drivers' licences submit to an efficiency test. Information as to the practice in the principal European countries is being collected but is not yet available.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMP SON: Will the hon. Member receive a deputation on this grave subject?

Mr. MORRISON: It depends whence the deputation comes. If it is a responsible deputation, I shall be pleased to receive it.

Sir F. NELSON: Does not the hon. Member appreciate that a great hindering effect on the traffic problem of London is not only the nature of the traffic, but the inefficiency of many drivers? Will he not initiate steps to see that the drivers are forced to pass a test?

Mr. MORRISON: From my own experience, I am quite aware of the inefficiency of other drivers.

Mr. A. SMITH: Cannot the hon. Member get power to make these tests?

Mr. MORRISON: That point can be considered in connection with any road traffic legislation.

Sir W. BRASS: Will the hon. Member consider an oral examination on the rules of the road before licences are granted?

Mr. MORRISON: That will be considered, but my experience is that oral examinations have not much relevance to what happens on the road.

Mr. DAY: Does not the Minister consider that it is more important to find out whether the applicant has all his physical powers?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

GRAVESEND AND TILBURY FERRY.

Mr. ALBERY: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport in view of the growing importance of the ferry service between Graves end and Tilbury, if he will endeavour to secure better landing and loading facilities on the Gravesend side, especially as regards motor vehicles and goods; and whether, in view of the large and increasing number of workers who have to cross the river daily at this point, any steps can be taken to secure cheaper fares?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, to whom this ferry belongs, state that they have placed in commission during recent years two new ferry steamers specially adapted and equipped for the expeditious handling of motor vehicles, and I understand that in their view the present facilities are reasonably adequate for the traffic. Representatives of the Ministry recently made a local inspection of the ferry and its approaches, at which the possibility of improving the road approaches on the south side was discussed with representatives of the Gravesend Corporation and the railway company. I understand that the Corporation are now considering the matter, and when their proposals are received the question of the ferry facilities will be further considered. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed by the railway company that the present fares, which are in most cases below the statutory maximum, were last revised in 1923 and have since been reviewed on several occasions. The company do not consider that a further reduction of fares could be made at present.

Mr. ALBERY: When the hon. Member's representatives inspected the Gravesend side, did they also inspect the landing stage, which is quite inadequate as
compared with those on the other side of the river, and will he again give consideration to the question of fares, in view of the large number of workmen who daily cross the ferry to earn their living?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot at present give information in reply to the first part of the question. In regard to the second part, if representations were made to me, particularly from the local authorities concerned, I should be prepared to give them consideration.

ROAD GRANTS.

Mr. OLDFIELD: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in cases where the Ministry co-operate with, or make grants to, local authorities, such grants have in the past been conditional upon the insertion of a Fair Wage Clause, applying both to any direct work or any contract work undertaken by such local authorities; and whether he will consider the advisability of invariably inserting such a Clause?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Grants from the Road Fund are conditional upon the insertion of the Fair Wages Clauses in any contracts entered into in connection with the works to which the grant relates. Such a condition does not appear to be applicable to works carried out directly by local authorities themselves.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Can the hon. Member say whether, in connection with grants under the Unemployment Scheme as well as the Colonial Development Scheme, the same kind of Clause will be inserted?

Mr. MORRISON: That is hardly a question for me.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many unclassified roads of great local importance are not scheduled because they are not used to any large extent for through traffic; and whether he will allow such roads to be scheduled and to receive grants for their upkeep during this year?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 10th
instant to the Member for the Melton Division (Mr. Everard), of which I am sending him a copy.

LONDON TRAFFIC (STATIONING VEHICLES).

Sir W. BRASS: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to relieve the ever-growing traffic congestion in the narrow London streets, he will consider adopting the Paris method of stationing motor vehicles, where the stationing is only permitted on one side of the street instead of on both sides as in London, the side permitted alternating with the odd or even day of the month?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My Department has collected certain data relating to this method of traffic operation, and I am placing these before the London Traffic Advisory Committee with a view to obtaining their views and advice.

Sir F. HALL: In the event of the Advisory Committee reporting favourably, will the hon. Member carry it out?

Mr. MORRISON: It does not follow.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

ROAD SCHEME, LINCOLN (ST. BENEDICT'S CHURCH).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has under consideration any scheme which will involve the removal or demolition of St. Benedict's Church, Lincoln, in order to facilitate local arrangements for the parking of motor cars?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Consideration has been given from time to time to a suggestion of the Lincoln City Council for the reconstruction of a new road between the High Street and the Gainsborough-Doncaster road, in order to relieve the congestion of traffic at the Stonebow. Such a proposal would, I believe, involve the removal or demolition of St. Benedict's Church. The details of the scheme have not been submitted to me, and I am not in a position to express any opinion on it. I am not aware that the provision of parking space is included.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the hon. Member aware that any scheme which would involve the demolition of a church would be very adversely considered in
Lincolnshire as a whole, and will he see that no financial assistance is given to such a scheme by his Department?

Mr. MORRISON: I quite anticipate that such objections may be raised, and the hon. and gallant Member may be certain that they will be taken into the fullest account.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of fatal road accidents, the number of deaths due to road accidents, and the number of accidents from which no fatalities resulted, which took place in England, Scotland and Wales during 1928?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I have been asked to reply. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Return, dated 27th March, 1929, which gives the information so far as accidents involving injury are concerned.

Sir F. NELSON: 77.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of motoring casualties and fatalities brought about in many instances by the inexperience and/or inefficiency of the drivers concerned; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to remedy a state of affairs which is yearly becoming worse?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The matter is under the consideration of the Royal Commission on Transport from whom a report is expected very shortly.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport whether consideration is being given to the number of fatal and other accidents constantly arising through motor care and other vehicles passing on the near side of tramcars from which passengers are alighting; and whether he will issue preventive regulations similar to those in operation in Glasgow and other large cities?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend calls attention, but I have no power to make regulations of the kind referred to.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (INSURANCE).

Mr. MACLEAN: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the number of accidents,
fatal and non-fatal, which have been caused by motor vehicles whose owners have not insured, or only partially insured, themselves against such accidents; and, if so, whether he proposes to introduce regulations which will have the effect of insisting upon full insurance before any car is registered or licensed for public or private use?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that the points to which my hon. Friend refers have been receiving the attention of the Royal Commission on Transport who have undertaken to present before the end of the month a report on these and other matters connected with the regulations and control of motor vehicles from the point of view of public safety. At present I have no power to make regulations of the nature referred to.

Mr. MACLEAN: When the hon. Member has received the report will it be circulated among Members of the House?

Mr. MORRISON: The Report of the Royal Commission will be published in the ordinary way.

FORTH ROAD-BRIDGE (SCHEME).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport the names of the local authorities to which he proposes to send copies of the engineer's report on the proposed Forth road-bridge?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Copies of the Report will be sent to the local authorities who contributed towards the cost of its preparation, namely the Town Councils of Edinburgh and Dunfermline and the County Council of Fife.

WATERLOO BRIDGE.

Major CHURCH: 79.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the estimate made by the technical advisers of the London County Council of the effective and safe life of the existing temporary relief bridge at the Waterloo Bridge crossing has already been exceeded; is he in possession of any other information which would appear to cast doubt upon the future safety and stability of this relief bridge; and can he state when it is proposed to commence the work of preservation of the permanent Waterloo Bridge which it is generally understood was condemned as unsafe for traffic some years ago?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am informed that the chief engineer of the London County Council considers that the most perishable part of the temporary bridge should have a life of 10 years without repair. The temporary bridge has been in use for five years only. I understand that the London County Council are now considering the steps which should be taken with regard to the permanent structure and I hope that a decision will be reached at an early date.

COASTAL SHIPPING SERVICES.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON Junior: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the serious position which has arisen in regard to the coastal shipping services of the country as a consequence of the relief from rates given to all railway undertakings for the period December, 1928 to October, 1929 under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not aware that the rebates allowed under the Railway Freight Rebates (Anticipation Scheme have seriously affected coastwise shipping. The scheme applies to a relatively narrow range of traffics, most of which are not carried coastwise to any large extent, and as my hon. Friend is aware, it will be superseded in October by the Local Government Act, under which coastwise shipping will doubtless benefit as a result of the partial derating of docks and wharves. In the circumstances I do not propose at this stage to interfere with the existing arrangements.

Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Member whether he will guarantee that these great benefits will not be withdrawn?

OMNIBUSES, LONDON.

Mr. HARRIS: 82.
asked the Minister of Transport how many omnibus licences are held in the Metropolitan Police area by the London General Omnibus Company, how many by omnibus companies in which the London General Omnibus Company has a financial interest, and how many by other omnibus proprietors, in June of this year and at the same date in 1924?

Mr. SHORT: I have been asked to reply. As the answer contains a number
of figures, I shall, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOET.

Following are the figures:

The best available figures are the number of omnibuses scheduled which were as follow, on 30th June, 1929:


—
Scheduled for operation.
"Spares" (available in case of breakdown, etc.)
Total.


L.G.O. Coy.
4,381
547
4,928


Companies in which the L.G.O. Co. has a financial interest.
696
100
796


Other proprietors.
592
91
683


Total
5,669
738
6,407

Strictly comparable figures are not available for 1924, but the total number of omnibuses licensed for the 12 months ended 30th June, 1924, were:


London General Omnibus Company
4,489


Companies in which the London General Omnibus Company was believed to have a financial interest
387


Other proprietors
707

I cannot state the number actually licensed for operation on 30th June, 1924.

THAMES PASSENGEB BOATS.

Mr. WISE: 85.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is giving consideration to the development of a service of passenger steamboats or motor boats on the Thames as one method of easing the traffic congestion?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The matter has been considered on several occasions. While I should welcome such a passenger boat service as an addition to the amenities of London, I do not think that it would materially relieve traffic congestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

POWER STATION, BUILDWAS.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the
unemployment in the Ironbridge and Madeley area of Shropshire, whether the work in connection with the super power station at Buildwas can be accelerated?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that the West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority have placed the contract for the building of the super power station referred to, and that work has already been commenced on the site. The Authority have stated that the fullest possible use will be made of all suitable local labour.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many are likely to be employed upon the work?

Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid I cannot.

CHANGE OF FREQUENCY (COST).

Mr. HARDIE: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that through the working of the Electricity Act, 1926, in bringing the inefficient plant belonging to private enterprise into an efficient state, the cost is borne by the consumer; and whether he proposes amending legislation to protect the consumer?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend is referring to the supply of new equipment in connection with the change of frequency, I would point out that the cost of the changeover is being defrayed by the electrical industry as a whole and not be individual consumers.

Mr. HARDIE: Is not the hon. Member aware that all these costs are borne by the charge that is ultimately put on to the consumer?

Mr. MORRISON: The costs involved are spread over the whole electricity supply industry. It is true that this is one of the costs of generation and is a factor in price.

Mr. HARDIE: Is not the hon. Member aware that the bringing of an inefficient private enterprise up-to-date is not part of the cost of production, and that we understood that the Act was passed in order to provide cheap current to the consumers, and that that has not come about?

CHARGES, LONDON.

Mr. SCURR: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport the cost of electricity per unit for light and power for each of the undertakings in London, distinguishing between municipal and private undertakings?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The particulars desired are summarised in a statement published by the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

FINANCIAL STATISTICS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 83.
asked the Minister of Transport if, in the annual statement of the Electricity Commissioners on the financial position of electricity undertakings, he will provide, in the section dealing with companies, two new columns stating, respectively, the amount of reserves capitalised during the year under review and the amount capitalised from the commencement of the company?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I think it might be possible for the information desired by my hon. Friend to be embodied in future in the annual financial statistics issued by the Electricity Commissioners, and I have asked the Com missioners to consider this suggestion.

DISTRIBUTING UNDERTAKINGS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 84.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider introducing legislation to enable local authorities jointly to acquire electricity distributing undertakings which operate in their area upon the termination of the power to distribute held by such undertakings in any part of the area covered by such joint local authorities?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The object which my hon. Friend has in mind could, in certain cases, be attained under the provisions of existing Orders, and in other cases could be attained by agreement. Any legislation, however, which sought to alter the existing terms of purchase provisions relating to undertakings generally would raise wide issues on which I am not prepared at present to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANCIENT MONUMENTS, WALES.

Mr. HOPKIN: 86.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of men engaged as Custodians of Ancient Monu-
ments in Wales, their hours and conditions of employment, and the wages paid to these men?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): As the answer involves a number of details, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

There are 12 men who are whole-time Custodians of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings in Wales and Monmouth, including one employed for the summer season only. Their hours of duty vary with the times during which the buildings are open to the public. They are employed under a weekly agreement and are eligible for a gratuity on termination of service if the provisions of Section (4) of the Superannuation Act, 1887, are fulfilled; they are provided with uniform, but are not granted annual or sick leave with pay. The wages, which vary with the amount of work and responsibility involved, range from 17s. to 68s. Three men receive free residence as part of their emoluments. In addition, there are a number of cases, such as dolmens and standing stones in remote localities, where a nominal sum of a few pounds per annum is paid for cutting grass and generally keeping the monuments tidy.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (TARGET PRACTICE, HARWICH).

Mr. PYBUS: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that target practice at the Harwich defences is now commenced at 10 a.m., instead of noon as heretofore, and that this early firing is menacing the livelihood of no less than 600 persons engaged in the fishing industry at Harwich, which industry is only now recovering after the War; and will he issue instructions that in future no firing shall take place until noon?

Mr. SHAW: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. MILLS: 90.
asked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman
of the Kitchen Committee, if he is aware that the waiters' staff of this House receive a wage of 31s. 6d. per week, out of which they have to provide clean linen and a dress suit, and undergo daily inspection parade before duty; and whether, considering the personnel of this House has so changed and in view of their limited means, ho will consider immediate revision of these wages?

Mr. J. COMPTON: In reply to the hon. Member, the Kitchen Committee are aware that the waiters employed in the Refreshment Department receive a wage of 31s. 6d. per week, they are also supplied with free meals, and are allowed to accept gratuities. We are informed that the wages compare very favourably with those paid by other establishments for similar services, and the Committee regret that under present conditions no immediate revision of these wages can be entertained. With regard to the daily inspection parade, we are afraid that the hon. Member has been misinformed.

Mr. MILLS: May I ask whether the trade union representing these men has made any appeal to him to consider the question of a minimum wage?

Mr. COMPTON: If my hon. Friend and those associated with him in this matter will assist in re-establishing the grant which was formerly paid by the Treasury, we shall certainly observe trade union conditions.

Mr. MILLS: My supplementary question was whether a representative of the trade union to which these men belong has made any complaint to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. COMPTON: No, we have had no complaint from any trade union.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Apart from the grant, is this a defensible wage to pay to a man with a wife and family?

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask the hon. Member if he will consider paying these men a better wage in order that they may not be under the necessity of accepting gratuities?

Mr. COMPTON: If we could get an assurance that the majority of hon. Members will dine in the House, we shall be able to do better for these men.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. BUCHANAN (by Private Notice): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if he has yet come to any decision as to the rearrangement of questions, particularly with regard to the Ministry of Labour?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Kennedy): It is not a simple matter to arrange the Notices of Questions so as to make it reasonably probable that each Minister's questions will on at least one day of the week he reached during the time available for oral replies. Apart from the fact that it has been necessary this Session to provide a day for an additional Department—that of the Lord Privy Seal—there has been a very considerable increase in the total number of questions and supplementary questions addressed to Ministers. With regard to the particular Department mentioned by my hon. Friend, it has now been arranged that questions addressed to the Minister of Labour will, be taken first on Thursdays. The new arrangement will operate from the beginning of next week and the details will be posted in the lobbies as early as possible. I should like to say also that it has been agreed on behalf of both Opposition parties that the place assigned to the Scottish Office on Tuesdays shall remain unaltered for a period, at the end of which, if necessary, the matter may be again considered.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I point out that already the Ministry of Health questions are third on the list on Thursdays, and, under this arrangement, they will be fourth. Therefore they will be entirely outside the oral questions answered on Thursdays. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter for the Autumn Session and not to regard this decision as final. It means leaving out the Ministry of Health questions altogether.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I point out that in leaving questions addressed to the Scottish Office unaltered the Parliamentary Secretary is not remedying the complaint made by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and myself. It will be understood by older Members of the House, though not
by new Members, that we have only one day on which to address questions to the Scottish Office. English and Welsh Members can address questions to the Home Office, the Ministry of Health, and three or four other Departments, but these are all collected under one Department in Scotland under the Secretary of State, and, therefore, on only one day of the week Scottish Members are able to put questions concerning the work of all these Departments in Scotland. I think more consideration should be shown to Scottish Members, and that there should be some rearrangement so far as Scottish questions are concerned.

Viscount WOLMER: Would not the difficulty be completely overcome if we had a quarter of an hour more every day for questions?

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: There is an Order on the Paper for to-morrow, the Local Government Amendment (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading. A number of Members of the House, on one side or the other, are interested in the Bill, and it would certainly be for the convenience of the House if the Prime Minister would say whether that Bill is to be taken to-morrow or not.

Mr. MACPHERSON: On the same point, would the Prime Minister say whether he proposes to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule to-morrow so as to ensure that the Bill will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I may take the second question first, I have not decided to -ask for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. With reference to the first question, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, I stated to the House that this Bill was to be circulated for the information of the House so that they might see what was best that could be done in the circumstances, and that unless there was some chance of getting the Bill within a reasonable time it would be quite impossible to proceed with the Bill. But Members of the House will notice that on the Order Paper tomorrow the Bill is not the first Order. I was hoping that I might have had an opportunity of continuing my investiga-
tion to-day and of making a statement to-morrow about it. But obviously the Bill cannot be got to-morrow night. If the Bill's Second Reading is to be secured it obviously must be put down as the first Order of the day. I do not intend to take it to-morrow, but I will make a final statement about the fate of the Bill to-morrow if the right hon. Gentleman will leave me to-day to resume my inquiries.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make a statement and decide the fate of the Bill before the Bill has actually been given a Second Reading and before it has even been discussed? Does he propose to give it a place as the first Order any day this week or next?

The PRIME MINISTER: What I said was that I was still pursuing inquiries as to what is likely to happen regarding the Bill, more particularly the steps to be taken to get it through if we decide to go on with it and the satisfaction or otherwise that it would give to members of the House. If it is decided to go on with the Second Reading of the Bill, it will receive the first place on the Order Paper at an early date; but I prefer to wait until to-morrow to state what the result of my inquiries has been.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is it clear that the Debate will not take place to-morrow on the Second Reading?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perfectly clear. The Bill's place on the Order Paper to-morrow clearly shows that it is not intended to ask for the Second Reading to-morrow.

Miss LEE: Was I mistaken in understanding that on a previous occasion the Prime Minister definitely said that the Bill would be brought forward before the House rises?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, what I did say was, that the Bill would be printed and circulated before the House rose, and the intention—as a matter of fact it is not only an intention but a necessity, if the Bill is to be pursued, that it must be settled before the House rises.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the Prime Minister's statement that the Bill is not
to be taken to-morrow and that the Order Paper shows that the Bill is going to be opposed by a certain section of the House, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that means that if the House is to adjourn as originally fixed this Bill in all probability will be dropped unless he is prepared to extend the adjournment date?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is to enable me to answer that question definitely to-morrow that I am asking to be allowed to continue my investigations to-day.

Major WOOD: Is the Prime Minister aware that a large number of people are up from Scotland in connection with the Bill now, and that they are waiting to hear of its fate?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
That the proceedings on Government Business this day and on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any such Private Business may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock.
I am very sorry to have to move this Resolution, but I want to assure the House that the Resolution sounds much more formidable than my intention is. The first part provides that the Eleven o'clock Rule shall be suspended for Government business. It is not our intention to have a late siding upon that. If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will find that the second, third and fourth Orders are more or less consequential upon Resolutions that have been passed by the House after very considerable discussion. What we think is that if a matter of only 10 minutes or so stood between the House and the giving of effect to these Bills, it would be a great pity to miss their passage by such a very small margin of time. The suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule means nothing but that a very short and very reasonable time should be taken in order to get these things advanced. With reference to the other part of the Resolution, it is, as all Members know,
to enable a second private Bill to be brought before the House. New Members are not aware, perhaps, of the provisions of Standing Order No. 8. The germane provision is that no opposed private business other than that then under consideration shall be taken after 9.30 p.m. There are two private business Bills down to-day, the London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill and the London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if both the Bills could be settled to-night The Debote on the first Bill is very likely to last beyond the prescribed time, and that means that it would be impossible to move the second Bill. That is the only purpose of the Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to point out that this Resolution is in two parts, and the first part is not debatable.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. Is it in order to put two propositions in one Resolution, one of which is debatable and the other is not, under the Rules of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same sort of Motion has been put down on many other occasions, but has frequently been divided and put as two separate questions upon a desire being expressed that that should be done.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: We on this side of the House are in a little difficulty. We have no objection to the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule in so far as Private Business is concerned, but we do object to the suspension for Government business, because we think it is a little early in the Session, and considering how helpful we have been to the Government. We seek guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, as to how we should express our view.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is it not possible to put the Motion in two parts?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite possible. If this is a request that the Motion be moved in two parts, of course I should accept it, but that does not get over the difficulty of the first half of the Motion not being debatable.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: May we ask the Government to put the Motion in two parts? We do not want to debate it, of course. We wish to have part of the Motion, but not the other part, and we are obviously put in a very great difficulty if the Government do not move it in two parts, as we have often done at the wish of hon. and right hon. Members opposite.

Mr. SPEAKER: If I am asked to divide it into two parts, I will do so.
Question put,
That the proceedings on Government Business this day and on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House),

Mr. E. BROWN rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Members did not declare the Question carried, and I ordered the Lobby to be cleared; but if hon. Members do not agree when a Question is put, they should challenge it more emphatically.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL (Seated and covered): On a point of Order. Were the two Motions not put together?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion is divided into two parts. I put the first down to the words "Sittings of the House."

Colonel GRETTON: (Seated and covered): I would point out that the object of dividing the Motion was to decide the question whether Government business should be continued after Eleven o'clock, separately from the question whether exemption should be given to Private Business. The case would be met if the Motion were put in this way:
That the proceedings on Government Business this day be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).
Then the second Question would relate to Private Business only.

Mr. SPEAKER: The second Motion then would begin:
That the proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House),
and so on.

Mr. W. THORNE: The point I want to raise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!" and "Hat!"] The Motion has not been put, and therefore I can stand. The question I want to put, Mr. Speaker, is that when you first put the Motion you asked for the Ayes and Noes and there were no Noes. Therefore, in my opinion at least, the Motion was carried.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN (Seated and covered): May I say that I challenged the Question when you put it the first time. Our desire is to divide that part of the Motion which deals with Government Business from that part which deals with Private Business. We desire to support the part which deals with Private Business and to vote against that part—and that part only—which deals with Government Business. The question I submit to you is whether you can put the Motion in so far as it relates to Government Business separately from the Motion in so far as it relates to Private Business.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hat!" and "Order!"] There is no occasion for a hat, as the Motion has not been put. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] Do I understand you wish me to resume my seat? [Resuming his seat.] I want to put to you—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hat!"]

Division No. 3.]
AYES.
[4.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Burgess, F. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Gibbins, Joseph


Alpass, J. H.
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gillett, George M.


Ammon, Charles George
Cameron, A. G.
Glassey, A. E.


Angell, Norman
Cape, Thomas
Gossling, A. G.


Arnott, John
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gould, F.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Charleton, H. C.
Granville, E.


Ayles, Walter
Chater, Daniel
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Church, Major A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Baker, Walter (Bristol, E.)
Clarke, J. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Climle, R.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barr, James
Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Batey, Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Compton, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bellamy, Albert
Cove, William G.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cowan, D. M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Daggar, George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dalton, Hugh
Harbord, A.


Benson, G.
Day, Harry
Hardie, George D.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harris, Percy A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dickson, T.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Ede, James Chuter
Haycock, A. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edge, Sir William
Hayes, John Henry


Broad, Francis Alfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Egan, W. H.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Brooke, W.
Eimley, Viscount
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Brothers, M.
England, Colonel A.
Herriotts, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Freeman, Peter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hoffman, P. C.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have come to the conclusion that a great fuss is being made about nothing, and that the best thing to do is to ignore the Question as first put and the Division that was called, so the hon. Member can stand without a hat.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am glad you have shown hon. Members on the other side that I know points of Order, and how to conduct myself in this House. I want to ask you whether it is not the case that when you put the Question there was a very feeble response on the other side, and that you accepted the Motion on the Paper? Therefore, the proceedings of the last 20 minutes have been entirely out of order, because the Motion on the Paper was carried.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was asked to divide the Motion in two, which I did in the ordinary way, but I found there was a misunderstanding. Because of this misunderstanding, I made a mistake, and, when I have made a mistake, I always acknowledge it.

Question put,
That the proceedings on Government Business this day be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

The House divided: Aves, 269; Noes, 155.

Hopkin, Daniel
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sitch, Charles H.


Horrabin, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Isaacs, George
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Snell, Harry


Johnston, Thomas
Muff, G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Murnin, Hugh
Sorensen, R.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oldfield, J. R.
Stephen, Campbell


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Kelly, W. T.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Strauss, G. R.


Kennedy, Thomas
Palin, John Henry
Sutton, J. E.


Kenwortny, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Paling, Wilfrid
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Kinley, J.
Palmer, E. T.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Kirkwood, D.
Perry, S. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Knight, Holford
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Tillett, Ben


Lathan, G.
Picton-Turberville, E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pole, Major D. G.
Toole, Joseph


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tout, W. J.


Lawrence, Susan
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Lawson, John James
Pybus, Percy John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Quibell, D. F. K.
Vaughan, D. J.


Leach, W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Viant, S. P.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Walkden, A. G.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Raynes, W. R.
Walker, J.


Lees, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watkins, F. C.


Longbottom, A. W.
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Longden, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Cot. D. (Rhondda)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lunn, William
Romerll, H. G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rowson, Guy
Westwood, Joseph


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
White, H. G.


McElwee, A.
Sanders, W. S.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


McEntee, V. L.
Sandham, E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Mackinder, W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Scott, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


McShane, John James
Scurr, John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sexton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Mansfield, W.
Shaw, R. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


March, S.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Markham, S. F.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wise, E. F.


Mathers, George
Shield, George William
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Matters, L. W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Middleton, G.
Shinwell, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Millar, J. D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Mills, J. E.
Simmons, C. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Montague, Frederick
Simon, E. D.(Manch'ter, Withington)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Henderson.


Morley, Ralph
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Buckingham, Sir H.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Albery, Irving James
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Carver, Major W. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Castlestewart, Earl of
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Beaumont, M. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Chapman, Sir S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Fermoy, Lord


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fielden, E. B.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Ford, Sir p. J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cranbourne, Viscount
Ganzonl, Sir John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crichton-Stuart, Lord c.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buchan, John
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.




Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meller, R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smithers, Waldron


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Muirhead, J. A.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Train, J.


Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar.& Wh'by)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Penny, Sir George
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wells, Sydney R.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Purbrick, R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsbotham, H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Withers, Sir John James


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lymington, Viscount
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Macdonaid, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Salmon, Major I.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Macquisten, F. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Sir Frederick Thomson.

Ordered,
That the proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any such Private Business may he taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

EDMONTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Consolidation Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

MEMBER SWORN.

Sir Albert James Bennett, knight, for Borough of Nottingham (Central Division).

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Lunn): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I would remind the House that we had a very full discussion last Friday on the Financial Resolution. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on that occasion suggested that there should be a sort of Second Reading Debate then, and I think hon. Members largely took that attitude. The proposals then made by the Lord Privy Seal the Government vegard as so vital, and it is so necessary that we should obtain the sanction of the House for this non-controversial Measure, that we are anxious that it should be placed on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. The Government gathered in the Debate on Friday that the Measure is acceptable to all sections of the House, and they are anxious that to-day's proceedings on the Second Reading may not be unduly prolonged, so that we may start immediately with the means which, we believe, the Bill will provide, of Colonial development on a very large scale—development which will in turn provide work for our people in this country, I do not propose, therefore, to take up much time in dealing with the provisions of the Bill or recapitulating the various arguments raised during the Debate of last week regarding the beneficial results of the Bill or the vexed question of unemployment.
The Lord Privy Seal on Friday mentioned, in general terms, a number of schemes likely to be taken in hand if this Bill were passed into law. I have no doubt that many of them will be initiated at the earliest possible moment, but it is not for me to go further into that matter or to tie the hands or pre-judge the position of the advisory committee which is to be set up under the Measure to deal with schemes. During the Debate on Friday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) made one statement with which I agreed entirely. He said it would be for that
committee to weed out many of the applications for assistance. He also mentioned two classes of schemes to be considered. First, there are those which are obviously remunerative—and I would add those schemes which the richer Colonies are willing to undertake—and secondly, those which would never be remunerative. Here I should like to mention that while the committee will have to prevent any part of our proposals being frustrated by any tendency to inactivity, or any lack of imagination, they will have to give full weight to any doubts which local governments may feel in order that our help may not, in the end, place the dependency, after a period of assistance, under a permanent burden of uneconomic work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton) in that Debate felt some misgivings as to the effect on the native population of the launching of large schemes of development, but I want to assure him that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that any degree of compulsion should be brought to bear on the native population to furnish the labour necessary for the carrying out of any schemes under this Bill. All possible precautions will be taken to ensure that recourse, will not be had to forced labour of any kind and that the amount of labour drawn from any one tribe is not so large as to have a detrimental effect on tribal life. Such a statement is necessary at the present moment, because my hon. Friend will shortly be called upon to consider the results of the recent International Labour Conference at Geneva and the preparation of work for an International Convention which will have as its ultimate object the suppression of forced labour of every kind in all Colonial territories.
I should like to remind the House also that during 1926 the late Colonial Secretary introduced what was known as the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, and that there was considerable opposition to it on one point from some of my hon. Friends who are now on the Government side. As a result of that opposition, the Secretary of State inserted these words in Sib-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act:
The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that fair conditions of labour are
observed in the execution of all works carried out under any loan raised in pursuance of this Act.
As a result of the insertion of those words, the Secretary of State has regularly, I believe, received reports in regard to wages, rations, sanitary arrangements, and other matters affecting the conditions of labour, which are carefully scrutinised by the Colonial Department; and the Secretary of State to-day intends to apply the same system to all works carried out with assistance under this particular Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland made another statement, but I think I am entitled to say that I do not share his apprehension in that regard. He was apprehensive that railways may be constructed out of the proceeds of this Fund which will be profitable only to the white elements of the population in certain of these overseas territories, and that the natives will derive little or no benefit from such undertakings. I think he was referring to tropical Africa, but it is difficult to imagine any railway which could be constructed which would benefit alone the white settlers. All the places to which railways are at present projected under schemes contain large numbers of native producers, who will stand to profit by any increased facilities for export and for import.
The most important project that has been mentioned up to now is the building of the Zambesi Bridge and the extension of the existing railway to a port on Lake Nyasa. Nyasaland has the densest population in East Africa, I think I may say, and one of the best educated, but this population at present have no means to dispose of their products owing to the lack of communications, and for this reason they are unable to purchase British manufactures, which many of them are anxious to obtain. Other schemes have been fully considered, but the report regarding each scheme is unfavourable, the only scheme that has been found to be practicable being the one for the construction of the Zambesi Bridge.
The Lord Privy Seal also indicated that an effort will be made at the outset to prevent anything in the nature of overlapping with the Empire Marketing Board, and I can promise that the new Advisory Committee which is to be set up under this Bill will, as its first
task, confer with the Empire Marketing Board and will submit to my Noble Friend an agreed outline of procedure for dealing with applications from Colonial Governments and other parties for assistance in research and in all matters in which the Colonies are interested. There were several speakers in the Debate on Friday last who raised the question of medical services and urged that they should be considered in any scheme of Colonial development. There have been many schemes undertaken, not only by this country but by other countries, in recent years in which that matter has been considered very seriously and taken in hand, and they have proved the wisdom of giving attention to the health conditions of those who labour in these great enterprises, and I think I ought to say that it is equally important that health conditions should be considered even in smaller enterprises. I can assure the House that in any new schemes of Colonial development the medical services and medical research for the improvement of health conditions will find a very important place.

The question was raised as to whether this Bill will assist private enterprise. I am not sure whether the production carried on by native persons in Africa-may be classed as private enterprise or not, but I can assure the House that we intend to do all in our power to assist the native cultivator, and that, while the great majority of schemes which we have under consideration are purely Government undertakings, we shall not hesitate to assist private enterprise, in return, of course, for a proper share of control, where such action may be expected to aid in the reduction of unemployment in this country and the improvement of conditions in the Colonies.

The Bill is a very small but a very important Bill. In Clause 1 it will be found that we propose to establish a Colonial Development Fund somewhat on the analogy of the United Kingdom Fund set up by the Development and Road Improvement Act of 1909. This Fund will consist of an amount which may be voted annually by Parliament, not exceeding £1,000,000, for 10 years, and advances will be made from the Fund in accordance with advice that will be given by the Advisory Committee
which is to be set up under the Bill. The objects of the Bill are set out in Clause 1, Sub-section (1), paragraphs (a) to (l), and I think it is very clearly set out what are to be the activities of the Advisory Committee. I do not suppose there are. any hon. Members who will object to the construction and improvement of harbours and the provision of equipment therefor in certain of our Colonies, the development and improvement of fisheries, promoting the discovery and improvement of water supplies—we could do with a little of it here just now after the weather we have had—or promoting the development of mineral resources. The payments from this Fund may be either in the form of grants or loans or in the payment of interest during the initial period on loans which may be raised by the Colonial Governments in the ordinary manner for any of those purposes which the Development Fund is intended to benefit.

This Bill will give a wide discretionary power for advances to be made, but it is hoped that there will be no wild cat schemes supported, and that the Committee will be guided by sound economic principles and will only recommend schemes where there is good reason to believe that there is likelihood that ultimately they will pay. The Bill is linked up, as my right hon. Friend said on Friday, with the promotion of commerce and industry in the United Kingdom, and we have good reason to believe that not only will development, be undertaken in many of these Colonies, but that the purchases of materials will come to this country and will assist considerably in the provision of work for our people. There is no doubt that up to now the Colonies have purchased materials for their development schemes in this country, and we believe that their orders will remain here and will help considerably in the provision of employment in this country. The scheme is based primarily on a far-sighted policy of Imperial development, but it will no doubt mean a good deal in prosperity to some industries at home. The Bill excludes the self-governing Dominions and certain other countries, such as Iraq and Transjordania, but otherwise it applies to the whole of the Colonies and to the Protectorates and mandated territories.

Viscount WOLMER: Not to India?

Mr. LUNN: Not to India. I am sorry that I am not in a position at this moment to give the names of the members of the Advisory Committee. A number of gentlemen have been written to asking them to be members. Replies have not been received at this moment, but I hope that the name.4 may be given at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate the nature of the Committee? Will they be permanent officials, or business men, or politicians? Of what kind of Committee are the Government thinking?

Mr. LUNN: I am not so much in touch as to know all those who have been invited to sit on this Committee, but I think I am safe in saying that they are not regarded as politicians and that they are not usually civil servants, but that they are business men or men who will be acceptable to the House for the purposes of this Advisory Committee.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: How many?

Mr. LUNN: I could not even say what are the numbers finally to be invited to be members of the Committee, but it may be possible, before the Bill is through the House this week, that the names should be given to the House. In Clause 2 of the Bill it is provided that this Committee and their officers may be suitably remunerated, if necessary. In Clause 3 of the Bill there is power given to extend the Colonial Stock Acts: by Order in Council to any territory which is under His Majesty's protection or in which a League of Nations Mandate is being exercised by the Government of the United Kingdom. That is an extension which I think has been supported and desired for some long time past. Under the Bill future stock issued in such protected or mandated territories as may be included in an Order in Council will be regarded as trustee securities. This should enable those territories, some of which are financially strong, but have so far been unable directly to avail themselves of the Colonial Stock Acts, to take full advantage of the favourable terms for development work. The second part of Clause 3 provides that the proposed Order in Council shall be laid before each
House in draft for 20 sitting days; and the third part is necessary because the Trusts (Scotland) Act, repealed and re-enacted trust provisions in the Act of 1900 so far as they relate to Scotland.
Clause 4 of the Bill amends the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, in two respects which have been found insufficient in practice. Each of these Amendments has been designed to remove obstacles which prevent, or are likely to prevent, colonies from getting ahead with development schemes which the Act was designed to facilitate. In this Clause, also, power is given to add to the capital of the loan the amount of interest payable during the period of construction not exceeding five years. This follows the ordinary commercial practice, and accords with the intention of the Colonial Office when the 1926 Measure was in draft, the omission from the final draft being due, I believe, to an accident. This provision will enable the Treasury to guarantee the loan of £2,750,000 required for the construction of the Trans-Zambesi Bridge, the concession for which from the Portuguese Government will finally expire in a short time. In paragraph (b) of Clause 4 we substitute 60 years for 40 years as a maximum period for the repayment of loans under the Act. This, again, is desirable in the case of late maturing projects, such as railways, to prevent their accounts in the earlier years being over-weighted with sinking fund payments. In certain cases colonies may be deterred from borrowing under the Act if they are bound to repay the loan in 40 years.
I have very briefly dealt with this Bill on its Second Beading. I know that it is the custom in this House for very long speeches when the Colonial Office is before the House. I remember that two days before the General Election, we had a full day's Debate on colonial affairs, and I heard one promiment Member of the Conservative Government say: "We could lose the Empire while the Colonial Ministers are talking." I thought that that was an extreme way of expressing it, but as the days go along, I can see how easy it is to fall into that position. With 40 different colonies, protectorates or mandated territories, and with the Colonial Office having to deal with each one of them from all points of view, equal to all the departments in Whitehall dealing
with home affairs, I am going to give no guarantee that if I am given the opportunity to remain in this position, I shall not step into the shoes of the right hon. Gentleman who held this position before me. It is a vast undertaking; we have vast numbers of people and large areas. This Bill, however, is a circumscribed Measure for a specific purpose, which is to encourage and aid schemes of development in certain colonies, and to secure, as we know that we will secure, that the materials for these schemes will be purchased in this country. I hope that the House will agree to this Bill, and that we shall not be delayed too long, as we are anxious to see the schemes of development begun and useful work provided for many of our people, as we believe it will be—useful work for those who are unemployed or partially employed to-day. I hope that the House will give us the Second Beading of the Bill to-day.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The hon. Member's speech in moving the Second Beading of the Bill, at any rate, assured us that when he comes to make a general speech upon the Empire, he will set a girdle round the earth in as sprightly a manner as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) used to do, even if not more sprightly. We on this side of the House do not wish to do otherwise than respond, as far as we can, to the hon. Gentleman's appeal, and to the appeal of the Lord Privy Seal last Friday, that Friday's Debate should in some measure be taken as a Second Beading Debate, and that we should facilitate the Second Beading of the Bill to-day. There are, however, one or two questions which I should like to ask on the Bill as it is now before us, and one or two remarks also that I should like to make. To take a comparatively minor point, the Lord Privy Seal and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies have laid stress on the grants for health purposes. These grants, if they are to be permissible under the Bill, will be admissible under Section I (I, l)—"any other means." If you mention "any other means" and specify one of those other means, as is done in the paragraph in the words "including surveys," we run very great risks of finding that health will be excluded.
That is, however, a Committee point, but I would ask the Government to give their attention to it.
The second point on which I should like to make some inquiry relates to the Committee. I quite appreciate that the Government, having invited a number of gentlemen, cannot give the formation of the Committee at the present moment, but I am a little surprised that they cannot even tell us approximately what size the Committee is to be, and what the composition is to he—in what proportion it is to be drawn from the business world, and what proportion, say, from ex-Colonial Governors, and so on. I think that oven at this stage we might press for a little more information as to the probable character of the personnel of the Committee. That is the more important if any question of salary is to be raised in connection with this Committee. I gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech that there was a question of this Committee being remunerated. This Committee will not be sitting de die in diem, and there are obvious advantages in having a committee which is not salaried. What position have the Government taken on that matter? Have these gentlemen been invited to joint the Committee without salary or with salary? Have they been led to expect a salary, and, if so, of what amount? We ought to have some information on this, because as invitations have been issued, something must have been said to these gentlemen.
The question of the Committee is all the more important because as far as I can make out, the Committee is the only mitigation to pure Treasury control over the expenditure of the money. It is rather a curious proposal. It is the first time in my recollection that the Treasury has directly assumed the function of a spending department. I confess that I am getting more and more puzzled about the principle upon which the Government are acting in the matter of this Colonial development. When the Lord Privy Seal made his original speech on the Address, he went out of his way to say that this was to be a Colonial Development Fund of £1,000,000 a year accumulating, and not to be raided by the Treasury. He emphasised that
we shall be taking power that in the Budget each year, as a charge not to be
raided, there will be set aside a sum of £1,000,000, annually, to be used to make grants of interest for a limited period on loans raised for Colonial development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 108, Vol. 229.]
Where is the Fund? It is called the Fund still. The Treasury are to be the only people to make payments into the Fund, and they are to manage the Fund. As far as I can understand, they are actually to regulate and to govern payments out of the Fund. They have to consult the Committee, but beyond that, the whole of this operation is entirely under Treasury control. They receive the applications, and they spend the money. Clause 1 (6) says:
Payments into and out of the Colonial Development Fund shall be made, and all other matters relating to the fund and the moneys standing to the credit of the fund shall be regulated, in such manner as the Treasury may direct.
5.0 p.m.
No one has a higher opinion of the Treasury than I have, but it has never acted as a spending Department. It is one thing which every Treasury official and every Chancellor of the Exchequer has always tried to avoid, and I should like to ask what is going to be the relation respectively of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, of the Lord Privy Seal, of the Treasury and of the Committee in regard to this Fund? Whatever may be the answer to this question, it is no longer a question of a fund which the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot rob. He robbed it before it was ever created, and the Lord Privy Seal's remarks in his original speech have rather fallen to the ground. I do not want to make any party point, because the Lord Privy Seal is encountering the same difficulties as previous Governments have encountered in dealing with this question. He has lost the first round of the battle with the Treasury, but for that reason it may be well to consider for a moment why this policy, universally accepted as it is on all sides of the House, did not see the light of day as a concrete proposal before the Conservative party's programme for the last Election. Why did not successive Governments before that time take up this obvious method of Colonial development? A consideration of that question will, I think, serve to guide this House and the Government as to the conditions of success or failure in this policy. This Fund, so called, set up by
this Bill we support, but in its administration it may be a success or it may be a failure, and its success or failure will very largely depend upon a proper appreciation of the real relations between this policy and the unemployment policy. To my mind, the real reason why this policy has not been placed in a concrete form before this time is this: For the last seven years successive Governments have had their attention pinned to the weekly unemployment figure; the standard set for them by the criticism of the Opposition in our party political battles and the trend of discussion in the country has been, Are those weekly unemployment figures going to increase or be reduced in the next few weeks, and what can be done to affect them in the next few days or weeks or months?
As long as that be the standard of unemployment policy, it is perfectly obvious that any given expenditure of money on particular objects abroad, whatever other advantages there may be in them, will produce less immediate effect on unemployment than the expenditure of money at home. A considerable part of any money spent on projects abroad in the Empire, will be spent upon labour abroad, and although it is perfectly true that there is a tendency for a good deal of that money spent abroad in the payment of wages to come back to this country in the form of purchases of British exports, it remains broadly the case that money spent, even in our own Empire, has less immediate effect on the unemployment figure than money spent in this country. The building of the Zambesi Bridge, necessary as it is, will not produce the same immediate effects on the unemployment figure as would be produced by a bridge-building project of similar magnitude in this country, on the Forth or wherever it might be. As long, therefore, as we are content that our policy for dealing with unemployment shall be measured by that short-sighted standard of the unemployment figures six weeks hence, as long as an Opposition presses the Government to measure their policy by that standard, and as long as Governments are told, as the present Government are being told already in the Press outside, that their success will be judged by the fall in the unemployment figures in the next six months, so long will any Colonial development policy tend to be weak, and so long
will the Treasury, when it is called upon to decide, as it has to decide under this Bill and under the whole policy of the Lord Privy Seal, whether it will spend money on Colonial developments or on unemployment grants or trade facilities in this country, come down on the side of expenditure in this country which may produce some immediate effect.
That is not the standard we wish to apply to the Government's policy. The justification for an active Colonial development policy is that even if it may produce less effect on the unemployment figures for the next few months yet we, as a great country, have to think of the unemployment figure not over the next few months, or even over a period like the term of life of a particular Government, but of the unemployment situation in this country 10 or 15 years hence. The only way to ensure a prosperous country at that period is by Colonial development on an active scale carried out on the calculation of eventual if deferred profit. Moreover, the justification of this policy is, that if you are going in for long-term development, if you are looking at the state of employment far ahead, you can get a bigger return in proportion to any expenditure of your money in the new Colonial territories of the Empire than in any other part of the world.
For that reason, I am inclined rather to deprecate the tone of some references which have been made by the Lord Privy Seal and others—I know it is merely a matter of emphasis—in wishing to speed up these plans because of the immediate effect on unemployment in certain depressed industries. I do not deny that orders for certain kinds of material for Colonial development may have an immediate effect on the unemployment figures in certain industries, but I think you will find it very difficult to give an instance where orders for material for Colonial developments would give more employment in those industries than orders for material for some development—bridge building or otherwise—in this country. That is not really the standard by which you can measure, that is not really the principle on which you can conduct, any useful and fruitful policy of Colonial development. You have got to face the fact that the money you are spending is spent as a long-term investment, that the unemployment you are seeking to cure is
not primarily the unemployment to-day, but that you must look to employment 10 or 15 years hence.
In other words, the late Government when they declared this policy at the election, and the present Government in putting this policy into the form of this Bill, were both, in fact, announcing this, as the present President of the Board of Trade said in that very remarkable speech of his the other day, that the time has come when, seriously as we must continue to think and to deal with our existing unemployment, we must not allow its existence to weigh us down and prevent us from looking ahead, must not prevent us from launching out into those adventures which are necessary to the continuing prosperity of any great country. We have reached a point where the prosperity and the economic resources of this country have so far been restored after the War that we can afford, and it is our duty to launch out upon an active policy of adventurous development; adventurous, of course, within the limits which ordinary sound business instincts dictate. We should do that with the consciousness of having the resources with which to do it as well as the resources which may be necessary to deal with our immediate unemployment problem of the present day. It is in that, spirit alone, I think, that any action under this Bill will be successful. If action under this Bill is confined to that narrow consideration of the weekly unemployment figures, the administration under this Bill will not be carried out as it ought to be carried out; but if, as I believe, all sides in this House desire to see an active policy looking to the providing of employment in this country 15 years hence, then certainly this side of the House will support the Government warmly in any action which they take.

Mr. LUNN: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to give to the Noble Lord and to the House information regarding the Committee which has come to me since I sat down. I do not like this irregular practice of Ministers jumping up to answer every question put in speeches, but perhaps I may be pardoned on this occasion, and I will not do it any more to-day. I understand that the Committee will be one of five or six members, and that the gentlemen who have been invited to be members of the
Committee are men of eminence in finance and industry whose industrial experience will, I think, command the universal respect of Members of this House as regards their suitability. No remuneration is to be given to members of the Committee. The names cannot be given now.

Major CHURCH: Has anyone directly representing science been invited to serve on the Committee?

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: May I ask whether there is to be any representative of the native workers concerned?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The Under-Secretary of State has appealed to the House for conciseness in our Debate, and in his very interesting speech has set us an example which I shall endeavour to follow. Before I deal with various points in the Bill, I cannot; refrain from referring to one or two observations made by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) which seemed to me to be a remarkably frank confession of some of the defects of the Government of which he was a leading member. He asked: "Why is it that this policy, which is so obviously right that every sensible man will agree with it and endeavour to promote it, was never attempted by the Government which held office for four and a half years?" "It was," he said, "because we were too shortsighted, we were concentrating our attention upon Measures which might relieve the unemployment situation within a few weeks and were unable to take a distant view." For that reason, he said, and as far as I gather, for that reason alone, they brought forward no policy of this character until their election programme was produced on the eve of the General Election, when it was made clear that it was one of their purposes. The whole object of statemanship should be to foresee and take a long view, and not be influenced by narrow and short-sighted considerations.

Lord E. PERCY: Was it my party which promised at the election to reduce unemployment to normal proportions in one year?

Sir H. SAMUEL: We made it perfectly plain in all our publications and speeches that our immediate policy with regard to roads and other works was only a part of our whole policy. In every declara-
tion we made on these matters, and in every pamphlet we published, it was clearly declared that it was necessary to adopt a long-range and a short-range policy, and that the only cure for unemployment was to be found in the restoration of industry. We urged that the measures necessary to restore our industries were the most important. It was realised that such measures would take time, and we declared that mean-while some tentative means should be taken to reduce the number of unemployed to normal conditions within a year. We fully realised that afterwards the works we suggested could not go on indefinitely, and after that period we relied more upon our long-range policy to enable these men to be drawn back into their industries.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings said that the people had their attention concentrated on week-by-week figures, and would consider nothing but immediate measures; he also stated that for that reason the Government of which he was a Member were unable to develop an Imperial policy. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings has challenged me, I will say that some of us on these benches have spent a considerable amount of time with skilled advisers dealing with our development proposals which were published in a book entitled "Britain's Industrial Future." In that book we devoted a whole chapter to colonial development, and we propounded measures which are now being adopted in this Bill. We suggested the provision of more capital to promote in a variety of ways colonial development, and thereby secure an increase in our imports of raw material, and an increase in our exports of manufactured goods sent in exchange. This Bill is likely to meet with the unanimous acceptance of the House. The Under-Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs has said that although this Bill is small in size, it is wide in scope, and that is so. I think it is one of the most interesting Measures which this Parliament will be called upon to consider, and it deals with one of the most fruitful spheres of political action. But it is a Bill which would have been met with vehement opposition 50 or 60 years ago by a school of political thought represented in this House which went by the name of the "Little England" school, and which regarded with dislike,
or at best with indifference, the growth and development of our colonial empire, and would have regarded a Measure of this sort as a diversion of the taxpayers' resources from their proper use and destination.
That school of thought has disappeared long ago, and I do not think it has had any spokesman in this House for the last 20 or 30 years. It was never more than a small school of politicians, and it never commanded the official support of any party in the State. That school of thought having disappeared, the nation now realises in colonial development both its duty and its interest. We are responsible directly or indirectly for the government of one-fourth of the whole land area of this globe. In many areas the Dominions have their own Governments, and they develop their resources largely from their own means, although we have provided them with enormous masses of capital, and the loan of that capital has been of greater value in promoting prosperity and the development of industries than any manipulation of tariffs could possibly have been. We have a duty and an interest in this matter. We are trustees for the welfare of the inhabitants of our Colonies, and we are all directly interested in the development of trade which can be so largely promoted by an extension of the resources of our colonial empire.
I wish to refer to three or four particular points, and then I will conclude with an other general observation with respect to the finance of this Bill. My first particular point is that we are still not quite clear how far the measures to be taken under this Bill will be used for the promotion of private enterprise. There are, of course, a very large number of enterprises needed for the Colonies which are outside the normal scope of private enterprise such as railways, docks, harbours, telegraphs and telephones, and all those measures must naturally fall within the province of the State. I want to know how far beyond that the Government intend to go. I am thrown into some difficulty in this matter owing to a sentence which occurred in the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, and which very much surprised me. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Let me give another illustration of the absurdity of dogmatising about private
enterprise. In many of these Colonies you have young British settlers who have gone out there under terrible conditions. Very often, they find themselves handicapped, and they may even be ruined by a bad season. Sometimes they are unable to make good because they have not sufficient capital to purchase a tractor which would help them in a much better way than anything else. Under those circumstances, is it wrong to grant a loan to that man in order to enable him to purchase a tractor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1929; col. 1301, Vol. 229.]
I ask is that a, considered statement of the purposes of this Bill? It goes far beyond anything usually contemplated in Measures of this kind. Is it intended to make small loans to particular individuals in the Colonies, and is it proposed to do that by direct loans from some fund? Or is it intended to assist these people by the formation of agricultural banks? I find no reference in the Bill to that point amongst the purposes to which the money may be devoted, and there is nothing about granting agricultural credits. Before the Bill leaves this House I would ask the Government to give attention to the point as to whether it might not be desirable to insert some Amendment of this kind, if it can be done without going beyond the terms of the Money Resolution. I want to know if this Bill would allow money to be used for this particular purpose. In other countries agricultural credits are granted by co-operative banks and other banks with or without State direction, and in many of our Colonies institutions of that kind would be of great value. Was that what the Lord Privy Seal had in mind when he spoke about loans for the purchase of tractors?
I sincerely hope that the question of research will not be given an inconspicuous place in the programme of the Government, but will be regarded as one of the most important of the purposes included in this Bill. I would reinforce the suggestion that has already been made that it might be desirable on the Advisory Committee to have at least one person who would make it his particular duty to promote all kinds of measures of research. On this point, perhaps, I might quote a sentence from the book to which I have already referred:
Another primary need of these undeveloped lands is organised research in regard to their economic resources and
problems, their sanitary needs and their social and linguistic characteristics, together with the provision of effective training for administrators, traders and educators. This is one obligation which falls primarily upon the controlling government. A very modest expenditure in this direction would be repaid a hundredfold by the results of a more scientific development.
I commend that to the Members of the Government in charge of this Measure, and I hope they will not allow the more modest and humble representations on behalf of research to be put aside and drowned by the more clamant and active claims of more material development.
The Bill deals with Palestine, but I think the Under-Secretary stated that Transjordan was excluded. I confess that I see nothing in the Bill which would exclude Transjordan, and I sincerely hope that that is not intended, because that country is capable of great development. At the present; moment it is very under-populated, and unless capital can be found from resources such as this Bill provides, it is not likely to obtain capital from any other quarter. There is a Clause in the Bill which amends the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, and provides some relaxation of the conditions under which capital may be lent. When I read the Bill I observed that it mentioned the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, and limited the provision of these facilities to the Governments of East Africa. I do not quite understand that provision, and I hope the Government will be prepared during the Committee stage to accept an Amendment to remove that limitation.
With regard to the providing of capital in the mandated territories, as they are not really part of the British Empire, it is of great importance that special facilities should be given for their development. The system of mandates envisages a more or less temporary régime, and not a permanent régime, and in Palestine it is contemplated that at some period it will become a self-governing territory. But it is essential to its development that Palestine should be provided with capital resources. If Palestine tried to float a loan under the present régime repayable in 40, 50 or 60 years, no investor would be willing to lend money on those conditions, because it would not be known definitely whether before the period of the loan came to an
end the country would still be under the British Government. Consequently they would be in an unfavourable position, and this would retard the development of the country. Therefore, it is necessary that the British Government, as far as they are concerned with a mandated territory of this class, should be willing to guarantee loans in those countries, and that was done under the original Act of 1926. I trust that in any new Measures which are adopted these considerations will not be forgotten. These are in effect new countries; they are ancient historically, but very new economically. They are only on the threshold of modern development. I would mention, in this connection, so far as Palestine is concerned, that I was able to arrange, as part of these loan questions, with my right hon. Friend who was then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, that Palestine should pay £1,000,000 into the British Exchequer in recoupment for certain military assets provided during the War and left behind. I am not sure, but I rather think that Palestine is the only one of the territories affected by the War which has ever repaid anything to the British Exchequer for railways and other assets which were left behind. I am not sure with regard to other territories, but I think that that is so.
My next point with regard to Palestine is this: I would draw the attention of the Government to the desirability of laying before their Advisory Committee, if the Government of Palestine approves, the construction of a railway from Haifa to the frontier of Syria, with a view to linking up with a railway which the Syrian authorities may make from Beirut to Haifa, When I was High Commissioner in Palestine I had conversations on this point with the French High Commissioner for Syria, a very able man, General Wey-gand, who was strongly in favour of this project. It would be of great advantage to the Palestine railways, because it would allow of through traffic between Egypt and Syria. It would also promote trade between Syria and Palestine, which is most neeessary; and, not least important, it would link up the railways of Palestine, and, therefore, of Egypt, with the railways of Asia Minor, and would be the last link in making through railway communication, except for the crossing of the Bosphorus, from Calais to Constantinople
and from Constantinople to Cairo. I would, therefore, venture to take this opportunity of drawing special attention to this very important matter.
These are the particular points which I wish to raise on this Bill, and now, finally, a very few words on the general considerations of its finance. There are two methods by which the objects which we have in view can be fulfilled, and these territories aided in their development by the provision of financial resources. One is to guarantee loans, or to guarantee the interest on loans, and to give to these loans the status of trustee securities in proper cases, to promote the formation of agricultural banks, and even, directly or indirectly, to guarantee the debentures of agricultural banks. These are all means by which a great and wealthy country like Great Britain, with a high standard of credit, is able, without the actual expenditure of money, to render most valuable assistance to backward countries in securing the capital resources which they need, and I think that these powerful financial engines ought to be used, where they can be used without risk, to a great extent. The other measure is the direct grant of money from the British Exchequer.
This Bill proposes to adopt both means, and to give a grant up to £1,000,000 a year. I do not quarrel with that, because I think that in the circumstances it is probably necessary. It may not be essential to draw upon the whole £1,000,000 every year, but some financial resources of a liquid character in the form of money are essential. I hope, however, that the Government will be very careful how far they proceed along that line. If this were the first million for which we had to ask the British taxpayer, everyone would vote it with equanimity, and with great readiness; but it is nearly the eight hundredth million which the British taxpayer has to provide every year. A pound is a small weight to carry if it is the only pound, but, if you have a heavy burden on your back already, each additional pound presses with a disproportionate weight. So it is, in the present state of our national finances, with regard to any charge which is added to them. I would point out this further, that many of these Colonies are highly prosperous in their finances in these days, while the British taxpayer is very heavily burdened with
an enormous debt for wholly unremunerative purposes, and with heavy charges for armaments which still rest upon him. Many of these Colonies, although they have much poorer populations and a more backward civilisation, are free from those particular financial burdens. I have chosen five of the most prosperous for the purpose of illustrating to the House what I am saying.
The Gold Coast had a revenue, before the War, of £1,300,000, and it now has a revenue of £5,200,000. Its revenue has multiplied four-fold. The Nigerian revenue has increased from £3,000,000 to nearly £8,000,000. The revenue of Kenya has increased from £1,000,000 to nearly £3,000,000; that of the Federated Malay States from £5,000,000 to £12,000,000; and that of the West Indies from £3,000,000 to £6,000,000. These five Colonies, or groups of Colonies, have increased their revenue from £13,000,000 to £33,000,000. That is a most satisfactory growth. I know that even their present revenues are still inadequate for the enormous demands that are made upon the Governments for the development of those territories, but still the fact remains that they are not barren of resources, and that the burden ought not to be laid solely upon the shoulders of the British taxpayer of promoting these further developments that are in prospect. I trust that the Government will endeavour, whenever possible, not to commit this country, out of this expenditure of £1,000,000, to long-term payments—I mean annual payments extending over a long series of years; but that, wherever possible, they will make their grants in the form of paying interest for a few years until some new enterprise is developed and becomes remunerative. In that way they will be able to form something in the nature of a revolving fund, and use the same money over and over again at intervals of years to promote a much larger number of enterprises than would otherwise be the case.
Further, I would very strongly urge that they should not respond to the appeals that have been made by many hon. Members of this House to reduce Treasury control to a nullity. On the contrary, it is most essential that this House should strengthen the hands of the Treasury, and see that there is a really effective control
against lavish expenditure. Whenever the tap of public money is turned on, and the golden stream begins to flow, there is always the risk of waste, and it needs most careful management to see that that risk is avoided. I will give one example from the work of the Empire Marketing Board, which will be brought into relation with the work under this Bill. That Board, as we all know, for it springs to the eye, advertises in admirably artistic posters all over the country for purposes of promoting Empire trade. The artistic quality of those advertisements is excellent, and they, with the railway companies, have done something to redeem our hoardings from the ugliness and vulgarity which pervade them and disfigure our towns. I think, however, that the House will be astonished to learn that the Empire Marketing Board has already spent, in a period of three years, £250,000 upon these advertisements, and, for my own part, I very much doubt whether Empire trade has really got £250,000 worth of value from that expenditure. I trust that, if there is a curtailment of expenditure in any direction in order to provide resources for other purposes, that will be taken into consideration.
I raise my voice, therefore, to-day, and I think I am the only Member of the House who has done so in these Debates, in the interests of the British taxpayer, for the purpose of urging that his claims also should not be forgotten. There are many demands upon this Government in every direction. To-day we have this great policy of Empire development, needing large provisions of capital. Yesterday, we had still vaster schemes of domestic development, which will need still greater investments of capital. Our industries are called upon to rationalise their processes and to remodel their works. The coal industry, the cotton industry, the iron and steel industry, the railways, are all called upon to provide great sums of capital for bringing their industries up to date. Further, this Government is pledged to social expenditure in many directions which may involve considerably increased taxation. From the point of view of social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth, there is everything to be said for such taxation, but the House should remember, and I think that this Government and its sup-
porters should remember, that the resources of this country cannot be drawn upon all ways at once. If you are looking for the use of large accumulated funds for Empire development, for domestic develepoment, and for the remodelling of institutions, you cannot at the same time adopt methods of taxation which would prevent the accumulation of those funds. If we eat the eggs as fast as they are laid, we shall rear no chickens. This House accepts, I think, the policy now presented to it by the Government, and it will be very ready to vote the funds. Everything depends upon the administration of the Measure, and I trust that that administration will be carried on with a very careful regard for the interests of the public purse.

Major CHURCH: For some considerable time I have been trying to return to this House and to present a few views that I have collected in our East African dependencies and in other parts of the Empire on the subject that is before us this afternoon. I was particularly fascinated by the remarks of the Noble Lord the late President of the Board of Education, when he pleaded that we in this House should take a long view and not expect pound for pound for any immediate expenditure, but should consider that, under paragraph 1 (l) of Clause 1 of this Bill, we shall be giving opportunities for expending money on schemes which are not, perhaps, immediately productive. While the Noble Lord dealt with one or two items that might come under that particular paragraph, he did not refer to the subject, which must be very dear to his own heart, of the education of the peoples of the tropics. Expenditure of that kind, at any rate, cannot be immediately productive, but in the long run it will probably prove to be the most productive expenditure of all, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies could inform the House later whether that type of expenditure, namely, expenditure on education, would come under the category of
Any other means … calculated to achieve the purpose aforesaid.
I would ask my hon. Friend, also, one question regarding the composition of the Committee which is to deal with this Colonial Development Fund, I think the question is quite pertinent because of the
absence of any representative of science from the Committee which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions in 1924. He then set up a Committee on Industry and Trade, and omitted from that Committee, in spite of the mild protest which I made at the time, any representative of the scientific interest. Those of us who have been to the Colonies realise that half the problems of Colonial development are based upon the standard of education of the natives, and the other half are based upon the application of science to the development of the land. We are in the first instance reclaiming human material, much of which is waste human material at the present time; and, in the second place, we are developing the natural resourse of territories which are otherwise going to waste. At the preseurcesnt time, I suppose, about 50 per cent. of comparatively fertile soil in the mandated territory of Tanganyika is lying waste, not because of its inherent infertility, but because of the domination of a particularly pestilential insect, or various varieties of an insect, the tsetse fly. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and I were travelling through that territory, we came in close contact with one species of the fly at least, and we were reminded by the desolate country through which we passed, how much the future of that territory depend upon dealing with the problem it creates. It is a problem that has to be faced, not only in East but also in West and South Africa, at any rate in Southern Rhodesia, and it is a problem that is growing year by year.
Only two years ago, in the Report of the Nyasaland Government, they said they had not been able to deal with the pest, and it was encroaching. They had not been able to make any use of the money provided in their Budget because of the inadequacy of the service, or the requisite personnel to deal with the problem. The fly is encroaching year by year and very little is being done, except in a spasmodic way, to deal with it. It is interrupting trade routes, it is spread more rapidly by the construction of railways, it is holding more and more land under domination and we are doing very little as an Imperial Government to combat it. In fact, Members of
the House, in spite of the warnings given continuously by certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and also by Members on these benches, still regard with equanimity the handing over to an insect of some of the most fertile soils in the Empire. We are assured by certain agricultural experts that we have in that part of the British Empire alone, comprising 1,000,000 square miles, an area capable of producing more cotton than the whole of the area under cotton in the United States, moreover cleaner cotton, which is a. very definite consideration in these days. As the industrial nations of the world are becoming more and more dependent upon overseas supplies for cereals and other things, particularly fibres for the textile industry, so we shall find, in the course of a comparatively few years, certain sources of supply absolutely dried up, from the point of view of the British nation at least. It behoves us therefore to take the trouble to develop those territories over which we have administrative control.
There is another aspect that I was rather pleased to hear dealt with by the ex-Minister of Education. He supports the Bill not merely because of the effect that this expenditure from the Colonial Development Fund is likely to have upon the unemployment problem in this country, any more than we urge keeping in the schools of the country for another year 400,000 children because of its effect upon unemployment. It is not because they are going to affect unemployment that we claim that these things should be done; it is because they are right in principle, and it is our duty to do them. It is right to keep children at school for a year longer, because it is a matter of principle that they should be better educated and brought to a sense of their responsibilities. It is a matter of principle that we should develop the territories that are committed to our care. It is in that spirit that I should like this matter considered.
Since the question of The Empire Marketing Board has been raised again and again, I must confess to a feeling of surprise and a certain disappointment that included in this Bill there are certain paragraphs in Clause I, paragraph (e) dealing with forestry, (h) dealing
with the promotion and development of mineral resources, and (i) the promotion of scientific research. It is almost entirely unnecessary that those paragraphs should have been inserted. I feel they have been inserted on the basis of the previous Development Fund Bill introduced into the House in 1909, as the Under-Secretary suggested. But we have, in the meantime, set up the Empire Marketing Board, whose principal function it has become in the last few years to develop scientific research on an Imperial basis. The idea of submitting that Empire Marketing Board, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) suggested, to minute Treasury control seems to me a complete negation of purpose, as harmful in effect as any meticulous regard for Treasury rights over all specific expenditure with the limits of this £1,000,000 a year. It seems to me we ought to approach it with a certain mount of that adventurous spirit which has been recommended to us from the other side. There is too much Treasury control by men who are taken from the Universities and start their careers in this spirit of purely negative criticism, who normally start in that way and continue for the whole of their careers in a purely negative spirit. It is their business to examine critically every item of expenditure that is brought before them. But there are some of us on these benches, and I think on the opposite benches, who hope the Treasury one day may recruit men from higher administrative officials or Departments other than the Treasury, where they have spent an apprenticeship in dealing with productive expenditure in different ways. So I would deprecate the insertion of these paragraphs in the Bill dealing with research and certain items of development which, I think, more properly belong to the Empire Marketing Board.
I look at it from a particular standpoint perhaps—the standpoint of the scientific committees which will have to be set up. I am, perhaps, one of the first Members in the House to suggest that science should be represented on committees of this kind, but I would urge we do not have too many committees upon which science has to be represented. Do not set up another special scientific investigation committee or advisory committee. If you do you will overload the same group of scientists who are already
carrying out advisory duties for the Empire Marketing Board. You are overdoing it. You are taking many of these men away from their proper work, which is scientific research. They have been overloaded for years with these advisory committees, and if only you could cut down the number of advisory committees on science, on which you must have your scientists, so that they could at any rate envisage your Colonial or Imperial development as one committee, with large vision, you would do something to relieve them of a somewhat impossible burden. I very much hope it is not the intention of the Government to hamper in any way the activities of the Empire Marketing Board, particularly on one side. The Board, as it is constituted at present, is an admirable instrument for the prosecution and promotion of research. It is absurd to say a Board of that kind, with big schemes before it, can say to-day hew much it will want to spend in a year or two. There may be some specific problem with regard to parasites. The first thing it has to do is to find men of the right type of mind to carry on the research. Perhaps it has to train them, and then it has to decide where best it can extend their activities. That takes a certain amount of foresight. It certainly means that any estimates of the Empire Marketing Board for expenditure must, in the nature of things, be extremely hazy year in and year out. On the publicity side, I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen that, although we may be spending £250,000 a year—

Sir H. SAMUEL: Not a year—three years.

Major CHURCH: Although there is £100,000 a year spent, and although it may be time that there is no immediate tangible return to overseas producers or traders, or even the home producers and traders, yet I think the posters, artistic as they are, have a certain educative effect even from the aesthetic point of view. There is another standpoint. They bring home to a certain large section of the population, which seems inclined to forget the existence of the Empire, the fact that this country is responsible for the welfare of hundreds of millions of the peoples of the world.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sure all of us on both sides of the House welcome
back, on personal grounds, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. We know well the personal attention he has given to the problems of Empire, and we have listened to his speech dealing with a very important side of the scientific development of the Empire. I am glad to have had an opportunity of hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). Later on I should like to call attention to certain aspects of Liberal policy in which he and his leader are not altogether in agreement, as is evidenced by his speech. First of all, may I say a word or two about certain Clauses in the Bill as they affect certain parts of the African Colonies of which I have personal knowledge by more than one visit and in which I have some personal interest. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the assistance the Bill is going to give to private enterprise. It is very necessary that the House should not go away in any doubt about that point. Speaking with some knowledge of those who have actual interests in Africa, as settlers or investors, I do not conceive that under this Bill they will ask directly for any assistance at all.
6.0 p.m.
The part of Africa in which I am particularly interested is the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia. I am very glad the Lord Privy Seal referred to the great development that is going on in that territory. I believe the exports have come to the conclusion that there is a greater metalliferous area in the north of that territory undeveloped than in any similar area anywhere in the Empire, and the fact that this has hitherto to some extent escaped attention in this country is rather unfortunate. The other Colonies and Protectorates in Eastern and Central Africa—and especially does it apply to Kenya—have powerful friends in another place, in the Press and elsewhere. Until quite recently Northern Ehodesia had been rather the Cinderella of the Colonies, yet, owing to its mineral wealth, as the Lord Privy Seal truly said, there is likely to be a greater development within the next few years than in any one of the Central or East African Colonies. Nothing that I am going to say can be looked upon as polemical to the other side. I think that we have to bear in mind the position of
this country, of the Government, and of this House towards these Colonies and Protectorates. It is obvious that the Imperial Government have very definite obligations to these Colonies and Protectorates, obligations which, at any rate, are being partially fulfilled in this Bill.
I should like to lay down what, in my opinion, are some of those obligations. My list does not pretend to be exhaustive. In the first place—and I think I shall speak for every one in this country—we have obligations to the indigenous Africans who are entitled to expect opportunities for advancement by the provision of educational opportunities and protection against diseases in themselves and their cattle. I agree with every word which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Major Church) has said. It is deplorable that immense areas in some of the richest country in Africa should be rendered practically uninhabitable both for human beings and domestic animals by the existence of the tsetse fly. The House should not forget that we have obligations to the white settlers many of whom, at any rate, the majority as far as the territory of Northern Rhodesia are concerned, are engineers and mechanics. I know personally that a number of them were trade unionists who went from this country to work in the mines. Practically all the others are settlers struggling hard in a. country most inadequately equipped with roads and agricultural and veterinary services. I want to make it clear that I am not in anyway criticising either the previous administration or the previous Labour administration. The reason for this is to be found very largely in the rapid development going on in these territories.
I again take Northern Rhodesia as an example. Although it has certain characteristics peculiar to itself, it has many characteristics in common with the remainder of the Colonies and Protectorates. What it wants is an extension of schools, of hospitals, of medical services, and all-weather roads, which are of the greatest importance—let me say to all Members in this House who represent industrial districts, we shall never be able to get a large sale of British motor cars in a country like Ehodesia until there are all-weather roads—bridges, agricultural and veterinary services and research
services. I maintain that no question of principle need arise between the two sides of the House in this matter nor between the Government and their supporters, except those of them, if there be any, and I hope there are not, who would like this country to wipe its hands of its Colonies and Protectorates altogether. Undoubtedly, the Imperial Government have obligations to these territories, obligations, which, I think, ought to be carried out in the future by more effective means than that of the system of grants-in-aid. The developments which will result from carrying out our obligations, in their turn will lead to the development of resources, both mental and physical, human and otherwise, of the particular territory and its people, by which alone we can expect to get an increase of trade between these Colonies and Protectorates and this country.
I say that there should be nothing between the two sides of the House on that aspect of the mater. I do not think there could be anything between the two sides of the House—and I can assure hon. Members that I am not speaking sarcastically—because the development of these services will be almost entirely, as it is bound to be, Governmental. All these things to which I have referred will be carried out, no doubt, by the different Governments. Of course, that development will in the end undoubtedly, directly or indirectly, inure to the benefit of the inhabitants. Nobody denies that. But to those, if there be any in this House, who say: "Why should we develop Eastern territories when there is so much to be carried out in this country? "The answer is, that such development also affords the prospect of an increase of trade of which manufacturers and workmen in this country can take advantage if they wish. I emphasise the point again, that without the development of these services, we can never have the sale of goods which we all hope to see brought about. I hope that the Government will make that clear. Speaking as one with actual business in these countries, I do not think it will be desirable or necessary that much of this money should be used in giving direct assistance to settlers. I do not think it is altogether a sound policy to do so. There might be a question of making loans to settlers for fencing where you can keep out disease, where cattle are raised only
by fencing off the different ranches and farms. It might also be necessary, as the Bill enables, that tractors should be provided. Most of the money, if it is spent properly, will be spent on the development of the very necessary ser vices which at the present time are lacking in many respects.
I do not want to introduce anything which would be contrary to the spirit in which the Debate on the various stages of this Bill has been conducted, but I feel bound to point out rather emphatically one thing to this House. One cannot visit these countries—I have been three times to Northern Rhodesia and to a good many other Colonies as well—without finding in the minds of some of the white settlers and immigrants in those countries very considerable suspicion of the good intentions of a large section of opinion in this country, and, indeed, of the good intentions of this. House. I think this is a fair reflection of the attitude these people take up. I want to say at once that I am by no means wholly in agreement with it. In the first place they say that when they see a section of people attacking them in this country when they ask for money for development purposes that they need borrowed money for their country because it is impossible to develop new territories without such territories becoming debtor countries in the first instance. In the second place they object to being called "nigger drivers" or exploiters.
From time to time I have heard some such phrases used in this House and I read a description very like it uttered by an hon. Gentleman in the course of another Bill only yesterday. The answer of these people, these settlers, the people who are making their living there, men of all classes is: "Very well, if you say you have no money, and if you say you wash your hands of us and that your own country has the sole call upon your resources, if you say that -we are exploiters and nigger drivers, our course is clear. Our course is to go to the Imperial Parliament and say: "You must let us join with our brethren elsewhere in Africa and form a confederation which will at one and the same time free us from the unfair criticism of the British Parliament which will no longer control us, and leave us clear to get loans from the United States." That opinion is growing in the
Colonies. No one knows it better than my right hon. Friend beside me. Such a course could not in the long run conduce to the advantage of the native Africans. Therefore, those who claim in this House, as many do, to be the particular friends of the indigenous Africans should hesitate before attacking the settlers because by so doing they may jeopardise the interests of the very people they want to protect. In the second place it is quite certain that if they did follow a course of action which some of them are in favour of, if they go, as I believe they could go to-morrow, and get loans from the United States and develop their country with that money it is quite certain it would not tend to the development, of the flowing river of trade between this country and the Colonies. I have assured all these people in the course of my visits that all the best elements of the party which the Under-Secretary and others opposite represent are as anxious to assist them in their reasonable apiration as those of us sitting on these benches. For that reason, those who hold the views that I do are very pleased to see this Bill.
Before I sit down I want to ask one or two questions of a more technical character. The Lord Privy Seal in the course of his speech—and I listened very carefully to it on the Address—spoke of the advantages which would follow from an aerial survey of certain of our territories in Africa from the point of view of ascertaining whether or not the soil was suitable for cotton growing. The aeroplane is being used more and more throughout Africa as in other undeveloped territories, for the purpose of making surveys of land and ascertaining its character. There is no doubt this is a useful and valuable proposal, but I want to state—speaking as one who has experimented himself in cotton growing—that what we chiefly want in most of the territories is further actual research at an agricultural station into the right type of cotton for the different territories. In Uganda they have succeeded in obtaining information as to the right disease-resisting variety of cotton to be grown, but we have not yet succeeded in Northern Rhodesia. I think the same sort of thing applies in Southern Rhodesia. The British Cotton-growing Association and other bodies, and a very large body of opinion, including the
Secretary of State for War, are pushing this matter forward, but if we are really to develop the cotton resources of Africa we cannot, in my opinion, do so until we have far better data than we have at the present time as to the right type of cotton to be grown in the different territories. There is not the least reason why we should not be able eventually to develop in Africa a cotton-growing area equal to the size of the whole present cotton-growing area of the United States.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said on -the subject on paragraph (l) of Clause 1, which deals with the "other means which appear calculated to achieve the purpose aforesaid." As I understand my Noble Friend, he wished to be quite clear that the form in which the Clause was worded did not preclude the Government and those who will carry out the Act from including education. I think the Chancellor of the Duchy was not in the House at the moment. My Noble Friend asked for an explanation of Clause 1 (I, l), and asked whether it would include education, pointing out that it bad been sometimes held that the use of such words as "including surveys" would he held to preclude other forms of activity. If I am assured that, after consultation with their experts, the Government say that my Noble Friend's fears are not well founded, I am satisfied. We were glad to hear that the Advisory Committee will not he paid, that they are to be a voluntary committee, and that only their expenses will be paid. I agree with what my Noble Friend said about Treasury control under Sub-section (1), and I hope that when the representative of the Government replies he will give us a rather more extended justification for this proposal than we have had.
I am most anxious not to introduce any contention, but I cannot refrain from referring to something that was said by the right hon. Member for Darwen. He said that it was 20 or 30 years since there had been any "Little Englanders" in this House. I cannot accept That statement. I sat and the right hon. Gentleman sat in this House through the Parliament of 1906 and
until 1914, when the Liberal party were in power, and one could not fail to realise in those days that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the late Lord Harcourt, a notable member of the right hon. Gentleman's own party, was constantly hampered and harassed by the Little Englander sentiments of his back benchers. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the little Englander section had been dead for 20 or 30 years, I was astounded. It is certainly less than 20 years since the days to which I have referred. The right hon. Gentleman vent out of his way to attack my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings; therefore he must not mind if others of us on this bench attempt a riposte. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, with great earnestness, obviously believing what he said, that Empire development formed a most important part of the Liberal party's book. I do not know whether it is called "The Liberal Party and the Nation."

Sir H. SAMUEL: "Britain's Industrial Future."

Earl WINTERTON: The very term "Britain's Industrial Future" does not constitute what one might call an Imperial viewpoint. "Greater Britain and a Greater Industrial Future" would be more appropriate. We are told that in "Britain's Industrial Future" there is a whole chapter devoted to Empire development. That may be so, but how many chapters are there in the book? One chapter out of, say, 30 is not a very large proportion to devote to so important a subject. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the policy of his party is to encourage the Dominions and Colonies, who are to send their raw material here in return for the manufactured goods that we send to those countries. That being so, it is very regrettable that his right hon. Leader should have used a rather wounding phrase, which has become famous, about "niggers on bicycles." Anyone who read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues during the General Election—I do not know whether this remark applies to his own speeches—would have thought that: they paid no attention whatever to Imperial questions, except to decry them. I must pay this compliment to hon. and right hon.
Gentlemen opposite that, much as we differ from them on almost every economic question there seems to be a far larger proportion of members of the Labour party who take a real interest in questions of Empire development than ever there was in the Liberal party. Still I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Little Englanders in his party are dead; but he will have to keep his weather eye open to see that that unfortunate species does not spring up again in the Liberal party.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Although I have only been in this House for three weeks I have learned already of the consideration which is given to the first speech of a new Member. We may be accustomed to speaking on the platform, but I imagine that we all rise for the first time in this House with a peculiar hesitation. I therefore ask for the indulgence of the House. The feature of this Debate that will have impressed most new Members is the fact that the proposals of the Government have been received with such agreement on the Opposition Benches. A new Member, naturally, asks how it is that, if there is such agreement, the Opposition, when they were responsible for the Government of this country during the last four and a half years, did not introduce the proposals which they are now applauding. I do not want to enter into the delightful discussion which has just passed between the Liberal and Conservative benches, except to say that if my hon. Friends on the Liberal Benches can be condemned for devoting only one chapter of their book to Imperial development, how much greater should be the condemnation of my hon. Friends opposite, who were in power for four and a half years and did not produce the legislation which they now agree to be so necessary?
The Noble Lord, the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), remarked on the fact that the present Bill could do very little to deal with the immediate needs of the unemployed. That is true. Surveys must be made, negotiations must take place, plans must be produced, applications must be received, and the Governments concerned must give their consideration to the matter. But if a Bill developing trade on these lines had been introduced four years ago, when there was an opportunity, we might now have
been receiving the benefits of that Measure. There are four considerations which I wish to put briefly to the House. The first concerns the labour conditions in connection with the schemes likely to be developed under this Bill. We were very glad to hear from the Government Bench a definite assurance that forced labour will be prohibited under these schemes, that the International Labour Office had been recently discussing this question and that our Government would co-operate with them in the matter. I understand that the position so far as the International Labour Office is concerned is this, that it has decided to send a questionnaire to the various Governments, asking for information. May I express the hope that when that questionnaire is received, our Government will seek to prepare and bring before the International Labour Office a definite labour code, laying down the minimum of conditions for the workers in these countries.
That labour code should cover, in the first place, a guaranteed rate of payment for the workers under such schemes and should include the definite prohibition of forced labour in a way that cannot be circumvented, and the prohibition of the employment of child labour, at least under the age of 12, upon such schemes. It should, also, lay down a minimum of sanitary conditions in regard to the crowding and herding together of native workers which is likely to result as these schemes develop. In connection with the suggested prohibition of forced labour, at least within the local areas which come under this Measure, I would point out that forced labour is still continuing. I have correspondence which shows that in connection with that forced labour children of tender years are still employed, without payment for the work they do in connection with public undertakings. We hope very much that the new administration of the Labour Government will see that such conditions are ended.
In South Africa at the present time the trade union movement is developing among the native workers, but there have been certain restrictions upon that movement. There are hopes that that trade union movement will develop to Central Africa and East Africa. I hope that under our Labour Colonial Office instead
of the developments of that trade union movement being hampered and restricted it will be given the greatest possible encouragement, and that when negotiations are entered into regarding the conditions of labour under these schemes, that trade union movement will be encouraged and recognised as a means for such negotiations.
A further consideration which I wish to emphasise was mentioned in the speech of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton), and it received scanty reference from the hon. Member who spoke for the Government. The hon. Member for Elland urged that these schemes should be developed in areas which would properly serve the native communities as well as the British communities out there. In referring to that argument, the representative of the Government said that there was no need for pressing the point upon the Government, and that there was no danger that the railways and other public works might be developed in a privileged way for British interests. In East Africa, experience proves the importance of the point which was urged by the hon. Member for Elland. We hope very much that in the development of these schemes a proportion of the expenditure—I do not think that two-thirds would be unreasonable—should be spent where SO per cent. of the population lives, and that is, in the reserved areas of the countries concerned.
A third point which I wish to urge, relates to the increased value of land which will result from the development of these schemes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very grateful for the applause and the support from these benches. Already there has been very considerable speculation in the countries where there has been a development of industrial schemes. In East Africa, for example, where land has been bought at a few pennies an acre—2d. an acre is an example which has been given to me—that same land has been sold within a short period for as much as £50 an acre. We ask that in the preparation of these plans definite regulations shall be laid down to secure that the increased value of land due to this public assistance shall go to the public and not to private individuals.
My last point refers to the question of public and private enterprise. We admit that it is impossible in this Measure to lay down a hard and fast line and say that no assistance must be given to private enterprise, but we do urge very strongly that when such assistance is given in the case of new developments, railways, bridges, harbours and mineral development, that these new developments shall be under public auspices and not be conducted by private enterprise. In this country already we have, reached a position where that kind of enterprise is publicly conducted, and in respect of minerals we have the hope held out in the King's Speech that, they will be nationalised. I suggest that what is a good policy for this country in that connection is a good policy for the countries abroad, which we are assisting. In so far as private industries are concerned we press strongly that where public assistance is given there shall be public control in proportion to the amount of public assistance. In urging this we are not putting forward any new policy. On the Continent financial assistance has been given to industries of a great variety in character and representing very extensive capital, but wherever such assistance has been given the State has assumed for itself a control proportionate to the amount of public assistance given. Although it may be impossible to rule out assistance to private enterprises we urge that when assistance is given by the community that the community should have a return in proportion of that assistance.
The policy within these areas in the past has been to discover the rich raw materials that are there and then very frequently for combines and trusts to buy up these raw materials, or the land which permits them to be exploited, at a very low rate and to employ native workers under wretched conditions. The wealth thus produced in these industries has passed to absentee landlords and absentee financiers. I suggest that the Socialist alternative to that policy is that when raw materials are found in these countries the ownership should be left to the community in whose lands they are found, and if development of them is necessary such development should take place in the interests of the people who live there; that the wealth produced by such development should be
used for the education and development of civilisation amongst these people so that they may rapidly advance to a position of equality among the civilised nations of the world.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: The House will no doubt desire that congratulations should be addressed to the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) for the most successful manner in which ho has acquitted himself on the occasion of first addressing this House, and I may perhaps address a special word of congratulation to him upon the ingenuity with which, strictly within the Rules of Order, he has given a wide scope to a Bill which, on the face of it, is of much smaller dimensions. It augers well for his fertility in debate in the future. On this Bill there has been a chorus of assent, because I think it is widely recognised that in dealing with its subject matter we are leaving the unsatisfactory sphere of palliatives for the great evil of unemployment and getting down to a permanent and substantial cure; not, of course, by any means the only method or cure for this great evil but one which is certainly the most satisfactory. About the principle, indeed, there has been no dissent, but it has been widely recognised that its success or failure will largely depend on the methods of administration. It is to the vital interest and well being of the scheme that the principles of its administration should be satisfactorily settled from the first. I confess to a little doubt, in my eagerness that the scheme should be successful, as to whether the Government is not setting the limit of their powers and capacities in this Bill rather too narrow to give them the fullest possible hope of making the best out of it. On the separate question of principle I should like to make a suggestion or two, or rather may I put it that I should like to ask a question or two, because these are matters which are not fully cleared up by the technical phraseology of the Bill itself.
In the first place, I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there is no provision in the Bill for guaranteeing loans to Colonial Governments. I should like to ask why that is so. It is not really a matter of detail or of difference that we should be only taking power to make direct advances. When you are arming yourselves
with a weapon you want it to be as flexible as possible, and you get an additional flexibility by taking power to guarantee loans as well as to make direct advances. Not only is there an important consideration involved in the practical sphere but, as a matter of fact, if the lenders of the world only knew it some of these Colonies, to which money will be advanced under this Bill, have assets so substantial as to enable them to raise the money for themselves. Unfortunately, people do not know it; there is no information about it, and it is therefore right that the British Government with its great asset of credit should come in. What is the way to educate the public to understand how good is the credit of these Colonies? It can be done by introducing the provision, under which the Colony would actually make its appearance before the borrowing public under its own name but under the cover of the British guarantee. That is the way in which you can educate the investing public. It has occurred to me that this provision for a guarantee has been omitted from the Bill for a specific reason, and it may be that it is contemplated to give guarantees to Colonial Governments under the provisions which we considered yesterday; the general provisions for guaranting loans. No inexpert person can he confident about the exact meaning of the elaborate Resolution which we considered yesterday, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the view of His Majesty's Government that the Resolution which we passed yesterday is sufficiently wide to cover guarantees for loans in British Colonies overseas? I see that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shakes his head—

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir Oswald Mosley): I will reply.

Sir H. YOUNG: I cannot take any negative at the moment?

Sir O. MOSLEY: I will reply to the right hon. Member later.

Sir H. YOUNG: It is a point which can be cleared up. Let me put it in this way. Unless the Resolution passed yesterday is sufficiently wide to cover guarantees for loans to the Dominion Governments, would it not be very desirable that provision for guarantees should
be included in this Bill? There is another very important factor, not a detail, of the widest principles of administration which are to be laid down for the development of this matter; and it is this. Thi3 Bill really seems to me to mix together, almost muddle, two wholly different directions of advance as regards Colonial development. There is the direction of advance by spending money on research and education and organisation. That is specifically money which is a grant to the Colony, spent out of pocket, because you do not expect any direct immediate and positive return. It does not earn money directly; it only earns it indirectly. That is one direction of advance in development. The other direction of advance is the direction of economic development, by such undertakings as transport and so on. That is specifically work which you do by advancing money on which you expect a return, because the undertaking becomes profit earning and yields a return. It has occurred to me that it is somewhat undesirable to confound the two together. In this Bill they are put under a single sum of £1,000,000 a year, and consequently there is no provision made for the different administration of the two spheres. Taking these two things in order, would it not be much better to specify the amount you are going to devote to grants for research and the expenditure which you are going to authorise for advances for economic development?
There is a question of principle involved, and it is this, that you should make up your mind how much of the amount you are going to devote to each. You should have some idea as to whether half is going to be spent on one and half on the other or whether a quarter is going to be spent on one and three-quarters on the other. That is a matter of so much importance that it should be the subject of consideration by this House itself and should not be left to the decision of a Committee. My own view would be that, if that is a matter which should come up for a decision in this House, we should, taking the long view and making the big effort, decide that your attention should be devoted, your effort should be made, your money should be spent, on economic development. That is where the big effort should be made because that is
where you will get the best return for the people of this country in employment and for the people of the Colonies in better conditions of living. I am not in the least attempting to belittle the importance of the grant for research and so on, but it appears to me, if I may put it in this way—and I think it will carry conviction to those who have had any experience in Colonial administration—that it will be undesirable to arouse a state of affairs in the Committee as to lead to a competition between the purposes of research and an indirect return and the purposes of economic development and a direct return. We had better settle that question of future Imperial policy before the Bill leaves the House.
Then comes the question of the administrative organisation. The Bill shows no sign of recognising that any different machinery is necessary for these two purposes, and every practical administrator will certainly say that it is impossible to combine the two in a single organisation. A committee which is an appropriate committee for advising on the question of research would be inappropriate for advising on the question of economic development. There is the question of future policy involved, to which very special reference should be made now. It is one of the stars of hope for the future and the improvement of colonial administration that we should establish here, at the headquarters of the colonial Empire, an adequate central headquarters staff for research, for education and for these other purposes. Surely it is to such bodies as those that the Government would naturally look for advice upon the expenditure of these grants? Would it not be better to separate the whole of that region of administration at the outset, lest you should be placing any confusion in the way of tie path for the rapid establishment at headquarters of those organs which we all know to be so necessary and so much desire to see?
There is another curious limitation in the scheme as devised in the Bill, about which one must at any rate ask an explanation. Why is this assistance, this stimulus which is to be given to the Colonial Empire overseas, confined to this mechanism of advances to colonial Governments? There may be political explanations. I do not want to introduce any controversial element. I can under-
stand that it is easier to recommend that proposal to the general political effections of hon. Members on the Government side. But if we may look upon this question as a purely practical question, and a question of how we can get the best out of this money for the development of the Empire, is it not a pity to limit the possibility of making these grants so that they can be made only to Governments I There are public utility companies operating in the Colonies, carrying on public services and capable of making for the development of the conditions of life in those countries, just in the same way as at home.
Again, this raises the question, what is the scope of the Resolution that we passed yesterday? If under the Resolution that we passed yesterday, it is possible to give such assistance as this and there is to be power to give assistance to public utility companies and such undertakings in the Colonial Empire, then of course it is unnecessary to insert a provision in the Bill; but if, on the other hand, the scope of the Resolutions that we passed yesterday is, so limited that they are not capable of being used for the assistance of public utility companies in the Colonial Empire, then again I suggest that for the successful working of this scheme, for getting the best possible out of it, it would be better to widen the scope of the Bill and to take power to make grants not only to Colonial Governments. That leads directly, by a process of the severe logic of events, to another point which I should like most urgently to press upon the Government as an intrinsic part of the scheme for the improvement of Colonial credit which is contained in this Bill, because that is really one of the central purposes of the Bill—to improve Colonial credit and to enable Colonial Governments to get the funds that they require.
This Bill is intended to enable the Colonies to get fresh money for these works. At the same time would it not be a very wise thing to consider another aspect of Colonial credit which is really the seamy side of the bright side that we are looking at to-day? I refer to the old, moribund or bad debts which this country has outstanding against several of our Colonial Governments. One might put it in this way in order to show the strict relevance: It is a very tenable
theory that if you were to relieve some Colonial Governments from the burden of their debts to the British Treasury, you would so much improve their credit that such assistance as that recommended in the Bill would be unnecessary. But their credit is depressed by this deadweight burden of unremunerative debt to the British Treasury, incurred for undertakings started in the past.
Certainly it would be a perfectly fair retort to an argument in favour of such relief as that to the Colonies, that at the very time when you are trying to assist their credit it would not be a prudent thing to exhibit them as not being able to earn a return for the money borrowed in the past by wiping that debt off the slate. But what is done, of course, in the case of a business undertaking under such conditions, is that when you want fresh money, you postpone the old debt to the fresh money, and you point out to the old debtor that in order to make the undertaking a happy and prosperous concern, he has to allow his priority to lapse. In such a sphere as this I would like to suggest that this is an appropriate opportunity for a review of these old debts in order to ascertain whether it really is not most in the interest both of the British taxpayer and of the Colonies themselves to postpone the priority of these debts and to put the Treasury rather in the position of the ordinary shareholder and not that of the debenture holder, so that he will get his return as and when the Colony is really earning and the credit of the Colony shall be relieved of the deadweight burden?
There are three or four very important questions, as regards the geograhical area over which this Bill is to have power to operate, which still need clearing up. A question was put to the Lord Privy Seal on the Money Resolution as to what would be the bearing of this Bill upon Iraq. Iraq has a dubious status—not dubious in any derogatory sense, but dubious in the sense that it might puzzle an international lawyer. It is in effect in the position of a mandated territory, and yet, I understand, there is no mandate, strictly speaking. Since that is so, it would appear that Iraq could not be within the ambit of the Bill. If that be so, would it not be worth while to review the matter? Iraq is as much in need of
assistance as many Colonies and mandated territories, and as a matter of fact the benefits which are expected from this Bill in other parts of the world could be got quite characteristically and with as much certainty there as anywhere else by giving assistance of the sort designed by the Bill to such a proposition as the Iraq railway. The reply of the Lord Privy Seal left me, at any rate, in very great doubt as to whether Iraq was included in the Bill or not. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy will say whether it is or not. I understand him to say that it is not. If that statement is based on a technical difficulty, let me urge him at this period to give most serious consideration to the question whether the difficulty cannot be overcome. It may be said that the political susceptibilites, the honourable and legitimate susceptibilities of the Arab State might be injured by its inclusion in the Bill.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that Iraq is mandated territory legally although not according to the special agreement?

Sir O. MOSLEY: Iraq is specifically excluded under the words "a mandate being exercised by His Majesty's Government." The words "being exercised" exclude it.

Sir H. YOUNG: We must accept the interpretation of the Chancellor of the Duchy that the Bill does actually exclude Iraq, and that it is done intentionally. That intention is what I am venturing to question, and I am advancing the argument that if possible that intention should be reviewed. There are, no doubt, legitimate susceptibilities in the Arab state which might be injured were any inclusion made of Iraq on the same basis as other mandated territories. But would the difficulty not be overcome by a special clause to be devoted to the special case of Iraq, so as to secure the benefits of the Bill both for this country and for Iraq without any wounding of susceptibilities? I cannot but think that in view of the material benefit which Iraq might derive from the Bill, the susceptibilities would not be found to be too great.
Let me make an even bolder suggestion, and that is, why should there not
be a special reference to the case of Southern Rhodesia? I am sure that we do not want the great potentialities which are contained in this Bill to be "cabin'd and connn'd" by any mere technicalities. It is in substance a technicality which would exclude Southern Rhodesia whilst admitting other regions which in economic development and territorial position are very similar and differ only in political status. In this matter, surely political status is not so immediately relevant as economic development? It might well be essential that there should be some consultation before such a measure were contemplated, but if the Government are seeking to get the best possible out of this Measure, would it not be worth while to look around and see whether in such cases as these two something cannot be done to get rid of technicalities, and with good will all round to widen the scope and the utility of the. Measure?
There are really an enormous number of questions of the very greatest delicacy raised by this Bill. At the moment let me refer to the question of the mandated areas and their status in relation to this Bill. I will confine myself to putting them in the simplest possible way in two questions. Has His Majesty's Government considered the question of what security can be given to a lender by a mandated territory, in view of the question which arises as to the actual ownership of State assess in a mandated territory? Secondly, when proposing Clause 3 of the Bill, has the Government given some consideration to all that is implied when investors are invited to invest in a loan issued by a mandated territory on the security of the assets of that territory, with tie guarantee of the British Government? Is it realised—I am sure it must be—that we must deduce from that a most important deduction as to the permanency of the relation between the Government and the mandated territories?

7.0 p.m.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has devoted particular attention to the subjects on which the House is now engaged, and his report has been of the utmost value to all who are interested in the development of those countries. It is therefore with particular interest that I listened,
as a newcomer to this sphere, to the proposals which he has made. There are many of those proposals which upon the Committee stage might well be considered, and some agreement might be reached upon them. There are others of the suggestions to which objections present themselves, and I hope to reply upon those points during the course of my observations. I will straightaway assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is quite impossible for the Resolution which the House passed yesterday to affect the colonies. Under the home development Resolution that we were discussing yesterday the guaranteed loan cannot be applied to the purposes which we are discussing to-day. That is quite clear from reading the Resolution.
This has been a very happy Debate since it has brought all parties in support of the proposal which the Government have been so fortunate as to adduce, and, since it has even received the blessing of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I felt that indeed the Council of State, of which we have heard so much, was in action. I think it is the first time for some 10 years in this House that the Noble Lord and I have not found ourselves in opposition on every subject that was introduced. It was therefore a peculiar pleasure to me—it brought back a very remote period of my existence—when I found myself once again in agreement with him, and was even happy enough to receive on behalf of the Government the commendations of the Noble Lord. He appeared, in the course of his observations, to support the late Colonial Secretary rather than the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his efforts were devoted to the widening of the Gangway rather than the Floor of the House. His strictures fell rather upon the Liberal party than upon the Government benches. These are subjects with which the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and the Noble Lord have been familiar for a great many years. I therefore listened with great interest to their observations upon the Money Resolution and the Bill.
It is my unfortunate lot to have to reply on the work connected with some dozen Departments of State and to have to master, as far as I can, the work of all of those Departments so far as they are connected with unemployment. I can assure
the hon. Members opposite that I shall do my best to meet all the detailed points that they have raised. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) raised the point as to whether health can be included in the purview of the Bill. Quite clearly, under the wording of the Bill, animal health is included, because anything relating to agriculture concerns animal health, and therefore animals are within the purview of the Bill. But I think the Noble Lord was referring to human diseases, and there, I hope, I can give some more encouragement than he found in the Bill, because the governing words are—
aiding and developing agriculture and industry.
Those words introduce to a very large extent the human element. He will find those governing words in Clause 1, Subsection (1) of the Bill, and repeated in subsequent Sub-sections. It should be clear that, where you are dealing with the promotion of industry, the health of those engaged in industry is of primary concern—certainly to us on these benches, and I have no doubt to hon. Members on the benches opposite.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is quite right, but may I point out that the words to which he refers are themselves qualified by the phrase:
For the purpose of aiding and developing agriculture and industry in the colony or territory, and thereby promoting commerce with or industry in the united Kingdom, by any of the following means.
Therefore, I am afraid that, grammatically, I do not find the comfort in those words which the hon. Member appears to find.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Those are the primary governing words. Then, later on, you find in paragraph (i) the words:
The promotion of scientific research, instruction, and experiments in the science, methods and practice of agriculture and industry.
I am advised that, within the framework of these various Sections and Sub-sections, it is possible to introduce diseases which affect those engaged in industry, and consequently impair the efficiency of those who are thus engaged. Certainly, such diseases as hook worm, which notably impair the efficiency of those engaged in industry, can be dealt with under this Bill. In fact, whenever we
come to a consideration of industrial efficiency, we must at once be led to the physical condition of those engaged in the industry, and it would be a very narrow and very mistaken reading of the purposes of this Bill if the great human element, upon which, after all, all industrial efficiency rests in the first degree, was excluded from its purview.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Why not include it specifically?

Sir O. MOSLEY: I have been trying for some five minutes to explain that it was included. Perhaps I went into such detail in trying to make that explanation that I mystified the hon. Member.

Dr. DAVIES: With great respect to the hon. Baronet, I do not agree with him.

Sir O. MOSLEY: After the explanation I have given, I can only assure the hon. Member that his fears are not justified. The next point raised by the Noble Lord was whether we were going beyond normal Treasury procedure in the provisions in this Bill. He seemed to think that we were turning the Treasury into a spending Department and were acting in a way that had no precedent. After our experience of yesterday, I can assure the Noble Lord that the Treasury representative will be only too happy to reply on this point if it is desired. If I may put froward a suggestion, I would say that there is ample precedent for the procedure here followed in the United Kingdom Fund of 1909 which was set up by the legislation of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). In fact, the Noble Lord's conception of the Treasury as the initiating and spending Department of this Measure is not justified by the Bill. If we take Clause 1, we find that
The Treasury, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, on the recommendation of the committee to be appointed, … may make advances.
The words "on the recommendation of the committee" make it quite clear that, in the first instance, the suggestion must come from the Committee, and it is also clear that the Treasury can act only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. I have every reason to believe that this is an entirely normal procedure which in no way departs from existing practice.

Lord E. PERCY: They can, of course, turn down any application the ugh recommended by the Committee?

Sir O. MOSLEY: Yes. It is an unfortunate fact and the power is very often exercised. The House appears to be in some doubt as to the activities of the Treasury. After all, the activities of the Treasury are governed by the policy of the Government of the day. The Treasury becomes obstructive and restrictive if it is the policy of the Government of the day to obstruct and restrict, but, if it is the policy of the Government of the day to pursue a forward policy, then the views of civil servants with their noted loyalty to the Government of the day coincide with the views of the Government, and what is a great obstacle to one Administration may become a great assistance to another Administration.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government at the present time to pursue such a forward and progressive policy?

Sir O. MOSLEY: I thought that the mention of the word "Treasury" would invite the intervention of the hon. Member. Whether as Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or as a back bencher, the hon. Member never hesitantes to pronounce the views of the Treasury. I can assure him that since he controlled the Treasury a change of Government policy has been indicated and that they are really beginning to forget the sound canons of financial restriction which he laid down for their guidance.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) who spoke for the Liberal party raised a subject on which he is peculiarly well qualified to speak. He raised the subject of Palestine, in which sphere his work has won such wide fame and recognition, and he complained that Palestine was not getting a fair share in this Measure. I would point out to him that, under the provision which permits a mandated territory to come under the Colonial Stock Acts, Palestine is getting a very big concession, a very great advantage for raising money under its own credit, and, after the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure that the credit of Palestine is well able to take advantage of
the opening thus presented. Then, again, under the Development Fund, Palestine can be assisted either by way of direct loan or by grant. In both those respects, we are by this Bill presenting Palestine with opportunities that that country did not previously possess. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that something has been done to carry on the great work which he has performed in that country. He raised, quite rightly, the question of spoon-feeding—

Sir H. SAMUEL: Why is Palestine left out of Clause 4?

Sir O. MOSLEY: That is a point which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, that Palestine was not specifically mentioned in Clause 4. I understand that, in view of the share of Palestine in that respect, there is really no object in bringing Palestine into Clause 4, but Palestine is assisted under the other Clauses of the Bill which permit Palestine to come under the Colonial Stock Act, and also permit this country to make a loan under the Colonial Development Fund.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does "Colony" include mandated territory?

Sir O. MOSLEY: Yes, that is precisely why Palestine is to receive the concession to which I have just referred. It was only to Clause 4 that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke with such authority had some objection. I am assured there is no object in including Palestine in that Clause for the reason which I have already given, and it is a point which can be further elucidated at a later stage if the right hon. Gentleman has any further remarks to make on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman also warned us against the danger of spoon-feeding rich Colonies which could perfectly well raise money on their own credit. That is a danger to which we are alive, and there is no intention on the part of the Government to make grants or loans under the Development Fund to Colonies which under the Colonial Stock Acts can raise money on their own credit. There are of course territories previously excluded from those Stock Acts which under this Bill are included and will be very well able to raise money on their own credit. I think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Federated Malay States. Their credit stands to-day very high indeed. They could evidently, under the
Colonial Stock Acts, raise money on their own credit and proceed without any other assistance of any kind from this country.
The right hon. Gentleman urged upon us the point of adopting schemes, as far as possible, in which the increase would only have to be granted for a small number of years with a view to turning over our money as quickly as we could. I entirely agree with every word he said in that connection. Of course we should, in the first instance, promote schemes which would make for quick results and in which the money would soon be liberated for other and wider purposes. He dealt again with the question of supplying money to private enterprise—a question which has been raised by some of my hon. Friends behind me. In the vast majority of cases which will arise, private enterprise will not enter in any way. We are acting in every case through the Colonial Governments. The Colonial Governments receive the loans but it is true that those Governments have the power, if they wish to advance money to "private persons or bodies of persons"—I think those are the words. Those cases will very seldom arise, and when they do arise they will not come about in the way which hon. Members fear. For instance, there are many co-operative societies. There are, for instance, the peasant co-operative societies in the West Indies which I believe have been very successful. Would it be wise in the terms of the Bill to exclude such people from participating in its benefits? Clearly, every hon. Member would desire that under the terms of the Measure such people should participate in its benefits. In these advances that is the kind of activity which we have in mind and in few, if any, cases would the ordinary private settler receive direct assistance.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Are agricultural banks included?

Sir O. MOSLEY: I will come to that point. If he did receive assistance, is it not entirely analogous to the case of assisting a small holder in our own country? I am sure it will not be denied that in some circumstances we may have to assist small holders working in our own country and I submit that there is a complete analogy. The right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of doing much of this work through agricultural banks. Certainly. There is no reason
why these schemes should not be worked in conjunction with existing organisations of that kind. It is a point which we have in mind and a most valuable suggestion that the schemes should be related to existing practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), in a maiden speech of the peculiar ability which we expected from him, raised certain questions of great interest as to labour conditions and administration in the Colonies. I think I can reassure him as to the fears which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) have expressed by reference to the terms and conditions of the Bill itself. To begin with, in Clause 1, Subsection (2), are these words:
Advances under this Section may be made … on such terms and subject to such conditions as the Treasury may think fit,
That is, that the home Government retains in its hands the imposition of conditions upon any of these matters in giving assistance. The home Government is not losing control over these questions and, beyond that, in the case of the Colonies the home Administration has very large rights of control in practically all cases. As far as the Socialist aspect of the case arises, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford has pointed out, in most cases these will be some of the most directly Socialist enterprises undertaken by the Government at any time, for the simple reason that the land, the railways and the public facilities, rest in the hands of the Government and the work will be carried out by the Government under the direct auspices of the State. That is a degree of Socialist activity which, so far, it has not been our fortune to meet with, and the few exceptions to that rule will mostly be of that co-operative order with which hon. Members behind me will be the very last to quarrel. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings, in expressing his agreement with the Bill, commended the proposals of the Government on the ground that they took the long view. He said, I think rightly, that Governments have been too much inclined to take the short view on this matter and that his own Government in particular were so much concerned with watching the unemployment
figures that they had not actually the time or the inspiration to bring forward a Measure of this kind. On such a happy occasion as this I am not going into that consideration. I would rather join with the Noble Lord in cordial agreement that the long view as well as the short view must be taken.
Whatever measures we can take to overcome unemployment ought to be taken by the Government. Whether they are projects which will give immediate results or which will only give long-term results, they ought to be adopted by the Government, if they help in dealing with the unemployment problem. In this proposal we have a happy combination of short and long effects. In a project such as the Zambesi Bridge, we have the prospect at a comparatively early date of steel orders for this country, while as a result of the general opening up of these new territories, we can look for markets and trading facilities in days which are comparatively far ahead. We have here a combination of short term and long term policy which must commend itself to all who wish to make a serious and abiding diminution in the unemployment problem. This Measure, having been so happily received in all quarters of the House, and this being a unique occasion of agreement and general felicity, I make an earnest appeal to the House to let, us have the Second Reading of the Bill now. As hon. Members know, these proceedings will be interrupted at half-past seven o'clock by other business. There will be ample opportunities during the Committee stage to deal with the points which I have not dealt with—if there are any, because I think I have dealt with most of them. In addition, there will be other stages of the Bill—

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Baronet say whether a scientific representative is to be appointed on the Advisory Committee? That is a very important point in view of the necessity for liaison between the Empire Marketing Board and this new Fund. It is desirable that the Committee should not consist merely of business men who have no knowledge of science.

Sir O. MOSLEY: That is a very important point which ought to receive every consideration. That question and also the question raised by the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Seven-oaks (Sir H. Young) of dividing research from development, might well arise when we proceed to consider the dovetailing of the Empire Marketing Board into the scheme, as promised by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal when he introduced the Money Resolution. These are questions of administration, of combining the existing and the new machinery, which might well arise on that occasion and that is a suggestion which we shall most certainly bear in mind. If we can have the Second Reading now we can press forward with a Measure which, by general agreement of the House, makes some contribution to dealing with unemployment and which will at a not too distant date provide some hope of orders for industry in this country and a mitigation of the greatest evil of our time.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON: Several speakers have emphasised the fact that we ought to take the long view. One point which does not seem to have been mentioned so far is that if we take the long view we are in duty bound to take the wide view at the same time. One person whose interest has not been mentioned this afternoon is the British taxpayer who is finding the money. There was only a brief reference by one hon. Member and he did not deal with all the aspects of that question. The genesis of this Bill is the necessity for dealing with unemployment at home. It is hoped that the stimulus which this Measure will give to various enterprises in the Colonies and mandated territories will produce a repercussion so to speak, in our workshops and factories at home. But there is nothing in the Bill to make certain that that repercussion will be felt in our workshops and factories. The one thing that has not been considered is the British working man's point of view and that is the point of view which I want to bring before the House because in my humble opinion it is of the greatest possible importance. We hope to see important contracts placed here which will be of great benefit to this country but there is nothing in the Bill to make sure that they will be placed in this country. If they are open to world competition we may see foreign countries, as a result of sweated labour and low wages, securing these contracts and
in that case we shall not derive the slightest benefit, or any help towards solving the unemployment problem which was the end originally in view. This may be described as a Committee point but I think it is of such fundamental importance as to be worthy of introduction into the Second Reading Debate, because it relates to the basis and object of the Bill. No provision of any kind has been made to ensure that the contracts which will ensue from the financial provisions of the Bill—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL [By Order].

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The House approaches the Third Reading of this Bill in somewhat unusual circumstances. Many Members of the old House will remember that this particular proposal received the long consideration of that Parliament. We had a Second Reading of the Bill, which was referred to a Private Bill Committee, where there were very long and expensive proceedings, which lasted some 12 days; and the matter was again considered by the House of Commons, and a Resolution was passed which enabled the new Parliament again to consider these and similar proposals. I think the main reasons which actuated the House in accepting that Resolution were, in the first place, that the time and expense which had been involved in dealing with Private Bills of this kind should not, if possible, be wasted, and, secondly, that the new House of Commons should have the right to say whether or not it desired a project of this nature to be continued. It is in those circumstances that we approach these very important proposals.
I do not think anyone would dispute that the subject matter of these two Bills, the question of London traffic, is a most important and urgent matter. There is no need for me to remind any Member of this House, whether he be a citizen of London or from some town or district outside, that there is an overwhelming case and demand for additional traffic facilities both in and out of London. It is perfectly true that in many respects we have a very fine traffic service. There are some 11 systems of tramways, of varying degrees of efficiency, in London, but no one will deny that we have a very fine London County Council tramway service. The London County Council are at present, I believe, providing for two-sevenths of the passengers carried, and they have about one-fifth of the capital invested in London passenger traffic. It is equally fair and right to say that, following the combination of the London General Omnibus Company and the various tube railways in 1915, we have in many respects, in this particular body of transport undertakings, one of the finest systems in the world, with some £92,000,000 of capital, representing about 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. of the total capital invested in London traffic. The London Traffic Act, which owed its place on the Statute Book to the last Labour Government, has been a very considerable help in that connection.
I do not think anyone will deny that there has been an extraordinary growth of London traffic during the last few years. The traffic on the local railways has doubled in the last 20 years. On the tramways it has grown from 361,000,000 passengers carried in 1902 to nearly 1,000,000,000 two or three years ago, the latest date for which figures are available. Still more extraordinary has been the growth on the omnibuses, and the numbers have actually risen there, during the same period, from some 280,000,000 people carried to no fewer than 1,671,000,000, and of course more to-day. It is an extraordinary fact that in 1928, last year, 5,000,000,000 passengers were carried in Greater London. I do not think the present Minister of Transport will deny—he would be the first to admit—that the present conditions of traffic in London are in very many respects
notwithstanding the services to which I have referred, chaotic and dangerous. Traffic congestion is growing. There were 1,000 fatal accidents in 1927, and I am afraid they are daily occurring in increasing ratio as a result of the present condition of affairs.
The first conclusion that I would draw from that very brief summary of the present conditions, so familiar to all of us, is this, that there can be no question, and it is quite clear, that there is no possibility or desirability or even thought of scrapping any present system of transport in London. People who talk about anybody being actuated by the desire to get rid, for instance, of the London County Council trams are simply putting forward a proposal which would be dismissed immediately by anyone who gave a moment's sensible consideration to it. There is no doubt that all these forms of transport are most urgently needed. It is also perfectly clear, at any rate to my mind, that you cannot appreciably increase the road services, but rather that, if we are to look for relief for the citizens of London in respect of the most unfortunate circumstances in which they find themselves to-day, the most promising solution appears to lie in more tubes and in highspeed railways In addition to this, there is a great waste and loss going on. In the rush hours in London to-day the present accommodation is very gravely overtaxed. Everyone of us could paint pictures of what either he himself has experienced or seen others experience in the mad rush and scramble of London traffic and its passengers in the early hours of the day, yet such is the waste and confusion of the present situation, with these diverse forms of transport, under no particular single control, that during the remainder of the day only about one-third of the accommodation provided is used.
There is another serious financial aspect from the point of view of anyone who desires to get something done in the way of providing a Way out of the existing unfortunate state of affairs. It is perfectly natural to anyone who surveys the condition of London traffic to say, "We ought to have more tubes, and we ought to have, if we can, fast railways," but it is equally true that it has been the experience, notwithstanding investigation after investigation, that new tubes in
London cost about £1,000,000 per mile, and that, in existing conditions, the undertakings concerned are unable to embark upon their construction.

Dr. SALTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that, if these Bills are passed, there will be any likelihood whatever of the extension of the tubes on the south-east or on the east of London, or anywhere else except in so far as the Finsbury Park line is concerned?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to develop in my own way the caw which I am putting before the House. I want, if I may, to put a reasoned and, I hope, reasonable statement before the House, and I repeat that, if you want to build a new tube railway in London, it costs about £1,000,000 a mile, and that in existing conditions the undertakings concerned are unable to embark upon them. I do not think that there is anything controversial about that. All these problems, the position of the London County Council trams, the position of what we call the Combine, the question of the management of traffic in London, have, as every Londoner knows, been the subject of much discussion and controversy for many, many years. It has been almost the despair, I should think, of any Londoner who was outside London politics, and it is a fact that the citizens in London have been waiting for some solution of this problem for at least 20 years, during every one of which matters have been getting steadily worse.
I do not propose to-night to refer, because other hon. Members may desire to do so, to the whole of the history which has led up to the particular proposals contained in this Bill, but I will endeavour, very shortly, to trace the history of the very sensible step, which was taken when the whole of this question, which has been the subject of such severe and often bitter controversy as to what should be done, was referred to the London Traffic Advisory Committee. I should have thought that that was a step that would appeal to everybody. Here was a Committee set up under an Act of Parliament for which the last Labour Government was responsible, and appointed by that Government, and everyone will agree—because I have seen no word of criticism concerning it—that it
was a thoroughly expert, impartial and far-seeing body of people, who had had during the last few years great experience of traffic problems. The very successful step was taken of referring this whole matter to them in the hope that some recommendations might be made to bring to an end the unfortunate state of affairs which prevail in London. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for emphasising the thoroughly representative character of that Committee. It was not made up wholly of politicians, for there sat on it officials from the Home Office, representatives of the police, the Ministry of Transport, the London County Council, the railways and the Underground, the assistant general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, a representative of the National Union of Kailwaymen and a very popular Member of this House, the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), whose promotion to office has pleased everybody.
That was the composition of the Committee to which this urgent matter was referred, and to the relief of the great mass of Londoners, the Committee came to the unanimous recommendations which are contained in their Report, which I see is described in the papers as the Blue Report.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): It was not unanimous.

Sir K. WOOD: I invite anyone to look at the Report, and it will be seen that, so far as the main principles and the major problems which faced the Committee are concerned, the Committee came to a unanimous conclusion. At the end, it is true, there are some reservations from Sir K. Chalmers, Mr. Cleveland and Sir Herbert Walker, but apart from them, the Report was unanimous, and I emphasise that because I am sure that it will weigh with hon. Gentlemen opposite to know that the three Labour representatives to whom I referred, signed it. I have no doubt that they were very glad to sign a Report which contained for the first time for 20 years some unanimity in this great problem which has so disturbed and divided and puzzled Londoners for so long. It was a great achievement, and it was brought about by people giving and taking, and
being prepared to surrender some of their political views in the interest of London as a whole. It was an effort which I suggest this House might well follow. The members of the Committee represented diverse interests, and naturally had their own views as to how the question of London traffic should be solved, and it is a matter which we can all commend that, in the interests of London as a whole, they came to this unanimous recommendation, subject to the reservation to which I have referred.
The Bills which I am supporting this evening are mainly founded upon the recommendations of this Report, and it is interesting and valuable and vital to a consideration of this matter to take into account that this body of men, experts representing all kinds of interests, found that it was impracticable for the London County Council, with one-fifth of the capital invested in passenger traffic, to absorb the other passenger traffic systems. I served on the London County Council for nine years, and I remember that in those days the position of the county council with regard to the management and the owning of the traffic system of London was discussed again and again. A good many people who believe in the municipality controlling the whole of the services of the locality, were inclined to say that when the London County Council themselves were owning and controlling part of that traffic, it was very difficult to see how that authority could be put into full control of all the London traffic. But whatever the argument may be for or against, it is vital to remember that this Committee did not make any such recommendations. Nor did they make any recommendations of complete public ownership of any kind. What they did, and what I suggest we should do, was to look round for the best practical solution which was possible to-day, which would work and which would bring the present chaos and waste to an end, and bring into being at the earliest possible moment those additional traffic facilities which are so urgent and vital to London.
I think that they recognised that in the present division of feeling and political opinion in London, we could go on squabbling and disputing about the problem of municipal or state ownership versus private enterprise for the next 20
years, and nothing would be done; and men who must have had strong opinions in the direction of state and municipal ownership, recognise in this Report that this was the only practical course that could be taken if anything were to be done within the lifetime of this generation. Broadly speaking, they brought forward a co-ordinating scheme involving the joint conduct of public utility services by public and private bodies, which I should have thought was an obvious settlement for a time, not prejudicing either the particular view of municipal ownership on the one hand, or of private enterprise on the other. They recommended that broad principle, which involves common management and a common fund, with what was called adequate public control. Thai; was their main conclusion, and I do not hesitate to say that these Bills, for which I am endeavouring to obtain the support of the House, are based, so far as all essential particulars are concerned, upon that Report.
8.0 p.m.
I observed in reading the Debate on the last occasion, that the great point of objection was that this matter was being brought forward by a Private Bill rather than a Public Bill. I do not think that there is great substance in that objection; at any rate, it is not of sufficient substance to warrant a refusal of these Bills, and a relegation of this unfortunate and unhappy matter to further discussion and controversy. I have endeavoured to put myself in the position of people who are opposed to this Bill, faced as they are with the present situation, and I suggest to them that there are immense advantages to London in those proposals. By them London will secure an immediate co-ordination of London traffic representing 80 per cent. of the whole of that traffic. I have carefully considered the objections which have been raised by many Members who say that there is not that adequate control which is foreshadowed in what is called the Blue Report. I believe that under the proposals of this Bill—and I shall be interested to hear if the Minister of Transport will gainsay me—there are sufficient safeguards with regard to rates and charges. Although I come from a Department that likes this sort of thing, I do not think I have ever seen a Bill in which there
are so many matters subject to the approval of the Minister concerned. I had to defend many such proposals in the last Parliament, but this Bill absolutely outrivals in this respect anything ever brought forward by the Ministry of Health. It is no exaggeration to say that practically nothing vitally concerning the interests of the public can be done by this new combination without the approval of the Minister of Transport, and, as an hon. Friend reminds me, in very many cases it is subject also to the approval of Parliament. I should say that in every case where the Minister of Transport desired it he could bring the matter to the notice of Parliament. I think there is also another merit in this Bill, and that is that it is an enabling Bill. If this Bill were passed to-morrow, the agreement made between the London County Council and what we call "the Combine" would have to go before the Minister of Transport who, I have no doubt, would cast a particularly vigilant eye on the proposals, and not a step could be taken as regards that particular agreement and the whole of the arrangement without his approval.
Controversy has mostly been raging on the question of control, but I think few will deny that this scheme affords an immediate opportunity for the improvement of travelling facilities in London; and there is another thing which should weigh with Members in all parts of the House and that is that the Bill makes available a scheme of employment by an immediate development of the Piccadilly section of the London Electric Kail way northwards by tube from Finsbury Park. In the course of the last Debate queries were raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to whether there was sufficient control and as to whether this new tube scheme was really a genuine scheme, whether there was a real intention to proceed with it. There is a very easy method of dealing with those doubts. If the Minister of Transport, who I am sure is trusted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, feels that there are not adequate public safeguards in this Bill, and that in any other respect the recommendations of the Blue Report have not been carried cut, he can make it a condition that amendments shall be inserted in this Bill in another place to secure adequate public control; and if it be not possible, owing to our Parliamentary procedure,
to put them into the Bill, there would be very little difficulty in bringing forward a supplementary public Bill to secure those safeguards.
If there is any doubt as to whether this large scheme, which would provide employment for so many men, is to be immediately undertaken, the Minister is in a position, as any Member of His Majesty's Government always is, to send for the representative of this undertaking. They, as I understand, and I have satisfied myself upon this, are prepared to embark as quickly as they can upon this extension of the tube railway. He can send for them and question them and satisfy himself whether or not that undertaking is or is not to be put in hand. The position of hon. Members opposite is, therefore, vastly improved. They have their own Minister of Transport, and he can make his own proposals regarding public safeguards, and can satisfy himself whether there is an immediate practical possibility of a great scheme being put in hand to improve London traffic facilities and, what is equally important, provide a considerable amount of work for men who, as we all know, have been asking for it for a very long time.
This is the only practical scheme before Parliament to-day. It is based upon the recommendations of this very representative Committee, and if it were carried out it would make an important contribution towards solving the unemployment problem. Very respectfully I would ask Members of the House who have come here to-night with the intention of voting against this proposal to give due consideration to these points. Let us consider as practical business men, apart from ordinary party political views, what will be the position if this Bill be lost. No one can say with any certainty, for instance, that the men who would be so usefully employed would within any reasonable period of time, obtain other employment, and no one can say when the much-needed improvement of traffic facilities in London will be undertaken. In the announcement which the Minister of Transport issued after prolonged consideration and, as I understand, some debate, he said the Government were fully alive to the importance and urgency of the London traffic problem and were ready to explore it further at once and
with the immediate interests concerned. I know the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me when I say, not in any personal sense, what cold comfort that was We all know what the word "explore" means. In that announcement there was no suggestion of a conference on the Bill itself with the parties concerned, though surely that would have been a wise course. The right hon. Gentleman could have discussed any improvement which he might desire to have inserted in the Bill, and any additional safeguards which he might wish to see included.
There is no promise of a Government Bill. I could have understood it if the right hon. Gentleman had said, "I have proposals of my own and they are much better than the proposals contained in the Blue Report or any Bills which are receiving consideration at the present time." But there is no promise of a Government Bill. So far as unemployment is concerned, and so far as the provision of the new tube and of other tubes up and down London is concerned, there is no undertaking in this announcement or in the speech of the Lord Privy Seal yesterday that the necessary financial support will be afforded. I have no wish to decry the efforts of the Lord Privy Seal, but there is no man in the House who can say that there is any comparison between the possibilities which this Bill affords of extending the traffic facilities of London and the possibilities under the proposals of the Lord Privy Seal. If I were a man wanting a job in connection with the building of a new tube and had regard to the promises in this Bill and the statement contained in the Minister of Transport's announcement that he was about to explore the position of London's traffic, I should look with despair upon the prospect of obtaining employment which is afforded by the Minister's statement. At the best, even if the Lord Privy Seal's proposals were eventually brought forward, they would provide only piecemeal help. They would do nothing to help to solve the main difficulties of London's traffic.
I think everyone who has sat in this House during the last three weeks without reckoning those who have sat here for years, must have come to the conclusion that there might be a much worse position. It may very well be that this
question of London traffic will be the subject of political controversy and discussion for another 20 years, and it may very well be—it is not beyond the bounds of possibility—that this tube extension will never be built—the probabilities are much more in that direction. I have endeavoured to make the observations I have put forward as non-controversial in character as possible, and I venture to say to hon. Members opposite that after many years of controversy, after many-years of patient waiting by the citizens of London, during which the traffic problem has been greatly intensified, and the position has become steadily worse, this Measure is the only practical solution before Parliament. These proposals have received the support of the most expert traffic body in the country, most of them holding different political views. Undoubtedly, this Measure gives an immediate advantage to the travelling population of London, and it also provides workmen with an additional means of employment. If any further safeguards are necessary, it will be possible to make them during the Committee stage. If we reject this Bill to-night, we shall deprive London of the greatest opportunity which it has yet been afforded of dealing with its great traffic problems. The rejection of this Bill will postpone indefinitely a promising scheme of immediate employment for a large number of men, and I ask for a further consideration of these proposals in the best interests of this great capital city. At any rate, this is a well-devised attempt to deal with a great problem, and it is a measure which will bring relief and employment to many of the citizens of London.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now", and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
We had many discussions on the proposals contained in this Measure at the tail-end of the last Parliament, and several attempts were made to push it through. Several of the most enthusiastic supporters of this Bill are no longer with us. Sir George Hume and Sir Henry Jackson, who were members of the last Parliament and members of the London County Council, are no longer Members of this House. It is difficult to explain why they were defeated at the election,
but I am inclined to think that one of the big factors which was responsible for their rejection was their association with this Measure. Instead of having those two supporters of the Bill, we have now the heavy artillery brought down from Woolwich in the shape of the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health who has come down to-night to try and push this Bill through the new House of Commons.
I am surprised to find that the ex-Minister of Transport is not fathering this Bill to-night, although he is no longer a Minister. I observe that the Bill is going to have the assistance of the ex-Secretary of State for War. This Measure raises a very old controversy, and I cannot help wondering what would happen if a Bill of this character were introduced for any other part of the country, because I am sure no other part of the country would stand it. For the last 20 years there has been no difficulty in promoting Measures in the interests of private enterprise, and, to use a famous phrase, they have said to themselves, "What a wonderful city to sack." Certainly, they found it a wonderful city to exploit, because all kinds of attempts have been made to exploit the essential and vital services of this great city.
I am old enough to remember taking part in the original struggle for the trams. I know that when it was proposed on the London County Council to electrify the tramway system and do away with horses the scheme was described as Socialism both on the County Council and in the House of Commons. I remember when it was proposed to continue the tramlines over the bridges Noble Lords came down in hundreds to the other House in order to throw out that proposal. In recent years, it has Been clearly proved that the municipalisation and the electrification of the London tramways has proved to be a great success, and it has brought about a great revolution in London traffic. Before that reform took place, we had to put up with the old knife-board omnibus, and old antiquated systems which made London the laughing stock of the world. The effect of the electrification of the tramway system in London was to bring about a keen competition among other forms of traffic under greatly improved conditions. We
had, of course, a more rapid conversion of omnibuses from horse to motor omnibuses, we had a tremendous number of new experiments on the London streets, and then came severe competition from the trams, and we had our first experience of what we are really discussing now, namely, the trustification of London traffic. It is a rather curious thing—I am not saying it for the purpose of creating prejudice—that the many attempts which have been made to organise London traffic have always had rather a foreign complexion. I believe that the London General Omnibus Company was really a French company. That may have been an accident, but the London General Omnibus Company became extraordinarily successful by skilful manipulation, by what is, I think, called "nursing," that is to say, running two omnibuses one in front and one behind their competitor and forcing him off the streets. The London Road Car Company, which was an English company, was forced off the streets in that way, and any other competitors who dared to show themselves on the streets of London were soon run off the roads.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: Get on with the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: Really, the hon. Member ought to have a little patience. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) spoke for 50 minutes, and certainly I should be allowed to reply. I am not sure that it is not a good thing that the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) should learn a little about London and the necessity for looking more after the interests of London. The third competitor of the tramways was the old—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but there are very strict rulings, in connection with Bills of this kind, that the discussion must be strictly confined to the matters dealt with in the Bill, and that only passing allusions may be made to other matters. I have been following the hon. Member very carefully, and I am afraid he is now going outside the borderline.

Mr. HARRIS: If it had not been for the interruption of the hon. Member for Streatham, I should not have transgressed, but one is stimulated by inter-
ruptions. If the hon. Member had been more patient, we should have got along more quickly. What happened then was that American capital came—and this is really the foundation of this Bill—and started to bring up to date the underground railway system of London, first the Tubes and then the Metropolitan Railway and the various associated companies. There were not only American methods, but American ideals, and, as a result, we had the introduction of our friend Mr. Stanley from America. Before the War he carried out the trustification of a great part of the London railway system and of the omnibus system, as well as a great part of the trams. During the War it was found necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament in 1915, which gave to the underground railways and to the omnibus companies the power to form a common fund; and the foundation of this Bill which we are now considering is that common fund.
That power was given, not as a permanent concession, but merely to meet War conditions, when large numbers of railway and omnibus men of military age had gone overseas and there was a shortage of services and of staff. Prices had risen, the high cost of transport had become a difficulty, and, therefore, this Act of 1915 was pushed through Parliament as an emergency Act. It enabled the various associated companies, under Mr. Stanley—now Lord Ashfield—to form that common fund and start the precedent in London traffic of treating the various systems of transport as one unit, pooling all their profits in one, bringing them under one control, and making them a very powerful authority. When the War was over, some of these powers were to have been taken away, but they were far too valuable for the traffic combine, as it has now become, to surrender, and so they used that new power of pooling all profits into one fund for the purpose of competing and endeavouring to make unprofitable the municipal tramways of London. Then a new competitor appeared on the streets—the private omnibus, the pirate omnibus, the independent omnibus, the omnibus run by a returned soldier; and very inconvenient and embarrassing competitors these were. They were so troublesome that again Lord Ashfield came to the House of Commons for a new Act of
Parliament. He did not get it in 1923, but, by a curious chain of circumstances, the London Traffic Act was passed when a Labour Government was in office in 1924.
The whole purpose of that Act, as I always said at the time, was to strengthen the hands of Lord Ashfield and enable him still further to tighten the stranglehold on the traffic of London; but there has been during all this time a, skeleton at the feast. The London County Council tramways, belonging to the people of London, were outside the pool, outside Lord Ashfield's control, and always able to compete, to keep down fares, and to provide an alternative system of transport for the people of London; and so a new campaign has been started in the Press during the past two or three years. In the first place, the tramways are attacked as being an obsolete system of transport. It is said that the tramways are out of date, and that the rails should be scrapped and puked up as being no longer suitable for the streets of London. Secondly, they are attacked because they are municipal, the implication being that they are badly managed, and that only the skill and craft and ability of Lord Ashfield could make then: a profitable proposition. I have one comment to make on that, and that is that, in spite of all these attacks, the London County Council tramways are not the only tramways of London. There is another tramway system, the London United Tramways, which is at present run under the control of Lord Ashfield. If tramways are obsolete, why does not he scrap his own trams? If he is so much better able to manage a tramway service than the elected representatives of London, why do not his trams prove more successful and profitable than the London County Council's trams? Recent balance sheets show that the exact opposite is the case, and anyone who has travelled on the two services knows that, as regards both speed and comfort, the London County Council tramways are vastly superior.
Then an attempt has been made to show that this system is unprofitable, that it is being run at a loss, that the ratepayers have to pay a heavy toll to make up the deficiency. Of course, that is a complete distortion of the facts. If these tramways were run on company finance, if the figures were worked out on
the same basis as an ordinary company's balance sheet, they would be paying at least 4½ per cent. to the shareholders. But, owing to the curious regulations of municipal finance, the capital has to be paid off in 20 years, and during the short time that these tramways have been in the possession of the people of London, in spite of the severe competition, in spite of the fact that the streets have been open to anybody and everybody to run vehicles against the tramway system, they have already been able to pay off half the capital cost, or somewhere between £8,500,000 and £9,000,000 out of the £17,000,000 raised from the public to defray the cost of construction. That is a result of which any business firm or municipality might be proud, and certainly it does not justify the handing over of this system, as proposed in this Bill, to a competitor, because of its financial bankruptcy.
When we originally discussed the Bill, figures were produced to show that we had a wasting asset. We have had 12 more months in which we are able to judge of the success of this concern, and that shows this has been the best year for many years. The actual results of working are £688,000. That is a very remarkable and satisfactory result. But the word has gone out that London traffic is out of date and is unsatisfactory and a drastic change is necessary, and that is why there have been these various attempts to force this Bill through Parliament. It is a bad Bill, based on wrong principles. There is no precedent for a Bill of this kind and it would not only be against the interests of the travelling public but in the long run would be a serious danger to the people of London. All this idea of concentrating the transport of London into the hands of one concern is thoroughly wrong and unsound. Lord Ashfield already has his hands full. I have looked up the Directory of Directors and I find he is a director of no fewer than 21 companies, including the Associated Daimler company, the British and German Trust Limited, Imperial Chemical Industries, the Midland Bank Limited, all sorts of underground railway systems and the United Railways of Havana. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are all very successful, are they not?] May be they are, but after all, a man has only one life. His hands are pretty
full and it would not be wise to hand over our traffic system to him, because even if it were possible for him to control so many systems and companies, it is unsound to concentrate the traffic of London in the personality of any one man, however able, capable and competent. It is building on a foundation of sand. For that reason only this is a thoroughly unsound proposal.
During the last few days various concessions, we are told, have been made. It has been stated in the county council that Lord Ashfield is willing to provide workmen's fares and to run full services. When I challenged the Chairman of the Special Committee who is negotiating these transactions, he had to admit that there was no written agreement. It was all in the air and merely a subject of discussion. If we are to have agreements of this character, surely they should be in a Schedule to the Bill. They have had plenty of time to think out the details of the agreement. These discussions have been going on for six months, and it is Very strange if these powerful people cannot make up their minds on the concessions they are going to give to the people of London in return for the monopoly right to exploit the traffic of London, because that, after all, is what the Bill means. It means creating a monopoly. The Blue Report is full of anomalies. One thing it was very firm about. If you were to carry through a Measure of this kind, to hand over the trams to the management of their competitor, effective public control was essential. This Bill says nothing of the kind. It is an enabling Bill. [Interruption]. That is too late. We are not going to part with these powers until we see the terms of the agreement.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member will recollect that under this Bill every agreement has to be approved by the House of Commons.

Mr. HARRIS: I prefer to see the terms of the agreement, and so, I think, the House will before we part with the Bill. If this is fair dealing, we are entitled to see what the terms of the deal are. As far as the right hon. Gentleman's case, that we shall not get a tube railway unless we hand over the trams to the traffic combine, that is nothing short of blackmail. [An HON. MEMBER: "How
can you get one?"] There are plenty of alternatives. There are plenty of people ready to accept the terms which, I understand, the Government would offer of the Trade Facilities Act. This is not the only traffic system in London. There is the Metropolitan Railway. It is just as efficient and well managed, I think more efficient than the District Railway, both in their service and in their carriages. Then, of course, there are the great trunk railways. If we had to extend the tube from Finsbury, there is the North Eastern Railway equally capable of building it and equally competent, offered satisfactory terms, to run a tube from Liverpool Street to Becontree and the country beyond. This is a threat. It will be a very bad day for the House of Commons if it is going to allow a combine or trust to threaten it, to say, "You shall not have railways, you shall not extend your transport system unless you give us a complete monopoly of London traffic." For that reason only I hope the Bill will be rejected. That does not do away with the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility. The traffic problem is urgent but, because it is urgent, that is no reason why we should take a wrong step. It will be the right hon. Gentleman's duty to bring up a new scheme, not a private Bill but a Government Bill. My quarrel with the late Minister all along was that he had five long years to deal with this problem and he did nothing.

Colonel ASHLEY: I did a great deal, and the Blue Report was the result. If the hon. Member says I did not bring in the Bill, it is quite legitimate to say so, but as an old Member of the House, he knows there was no Parliamentary time in which to do it.

Mr. HARRIS: The late Government had five years to waste in all sorts of reactionary Measures. Now, after five years, we have to have a private Bill. The Government will have the backing of all thoughtful people, and all who care for London, if they take their courage in their hands and introduce a Measure to deal with this long overdue problem. I hope the Bill will be rejected.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Amendment.
Those who were Members of the old Parliament will know that we on these
benches fought on every possible occasion against the two Bills which are before us this evening. The results of the General Election have confirmed us in that decision. Previous to the election, the party opposite was in a great majority in the County of London; to-day that position is reversed. The three great champions of this Bill—two on behalf of the London County Council and one on behalf of the combine—Sir Cyril Cobb, Sir George Hume and Sir Henry Jackson, are to-day seeking new pastures and are no longer here. They had to face the citizens of London—and it is remarkable that two of those constituencies were generally regarded as Tory strongholds—and went down before our attack, on this occasion largely helped by our attitude on these Traffic Bills.
We were pleased to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I am sorry that he is not now in his place. Those of us who were Members of the last Parliament noticed the difference in his attitude to-day in his endeavour to persuade this House to support this Bill, We were waiting for those lyrical quotations which he used to give us from time to time. Somehow or other he had different fish to fry to-night, and he was no longer the great fighting champion of the Minister of Health, hut he was a genial person pleading for the poor unemployed of London who have been waiting for the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Ashfield to come forward to promise them a tube to Finsbury Park. That sort of argument is absolute nonsense from beginning to end. A lube to Finsbury Park and all the rest of the tubes do not depend upon the Combine at all. If they depended upon the Combine why have not the Combine already obtained powers from Parliament to start executing the work of the Finsbury Park Tube? They told us that they could not raise the capital on favourable terms. Therefore, these Bills are brought forward in order that they may have the backing really and truly of municipal credit, so that by that backing they may be able to raise their capital on favourable terms and use it to the advantage of private enterprise in the county of London.
As far as we on these benches are concerned, and as far as the Members of the
Labour party who are representatives on the London County Council and on other public authorities in London are concerned, we have always been in favour of the co-ordination of London traffic. We have never been afraid of being able to bring about that co-ordination and to recognise that that co-ordination must mean control under a monopoly. But the monopoly of a great public service of this kind is not, as long as we are able to prevent it, going to be placed in the hands of a private company with a very considerable amount of foreign capital invested in it. We prefer that the citizens of London, through their own municipal authorities, shall be the only authority in regard to the passenger traffic of London.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich in his speech to-night brought forward the old argument that really and truly these Bills are based upon the Blue Report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. We have always been familiar with the Blue Report and with the arguments put forward that three members of that Committee were representatives of trade unions. When the right hon. Gentleman flourishes this Blue Report in our faces and says that these Bills are the result of, and implement, the Report of that Committee, he forgets to inform the House of the fact that as far as these trade union representatives are concerned, they publicly and emphatically repudiated these Bills in every way as not in any sense of the word implementing the Report which they had previously signed. If statements are going to be made, let us have the whole of the cards placed upon the table.
I am not going to detain the House long on this matter. I spoke before in the old Parliament. I fought very hard. I am glad to see that the whole of the Liberal party in London are behind us on this occasion in order that we may be able to defeat these Bills. As far as the Bills themselves are concerned, a statement has been issued on behalf of the London County Council which makes play of the fact that agreements must be submitted to the Minister, and, unless he certifies them to be supplemental or incidental to an existing Valid agreement, must be laid by him before Parliament. We know that an agreement may be nullified by the presentation of an
Address to His Majesty. That may deceive new Members, but it does not deceive a single old Member of the House. It does not deceive the late Minister of Transport. It does not deceive a single Member on the opposite side of the House. Everyone knows that this is procedure over which the House of Commons has no real control at all. The papers are laid for a number of Parliamentary days, but the exigencies of Government business make it absolutely impossible to get any time for discussion. The time lapses and the hold of Parliament goes. There is no public safeguard in these Bills.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member mentioned me, otherwise I would not have ventured to interrupt him. He knows perfectly well that it is quite true that normally the 30 days during which an agreement shall lie on the Table of the House are allowed to pass as a matter of course, but, if there is anything serious to which any considerable body of opinion in the House objects, hon. Members can always raise the matter and have it debated.

Dr. SALTER: After 11 o'clock at night.

Colonel ASHLEY: What is the matter with 11 o'clock?

Mr. SCURR: We have had experience on several occasions when we wanted to present a Prayer to His Majesty in reference to certain actions of the Government of the real time which we had at our disposal and as to how far we could get in trying to get any alteration at all. As a matter of fact, everyone knows that the procedure is absolutely farcical from end to end. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich said that if anyone suggested that there was any desire to scrap the tramway system of London he would be labouring under a delusion. No one here has ever suggested that they wanted to scrap the tramways of London. What the Combine wants is to get full control of the tramways of London so that in any possible further extension of London traffic facilities the tramways shall be left out and remain precisely as they are to-day. Traffic extensions will be tube, omnibuses, and things of that kind, and the tramway system will be relegated to the past. All we should get would be our present tram-
way system, which gradually would deteriorate and in the end be scrapped. We know that that would be an inevitable result of the passing of Bills of this kind.
The right hon. Gentleman says that one of the great features of this proposed legislation of which he approves is that the Bills now before us are enabling Bills. That is one of the strongest objections that we can have to these Bills. Any agreement of this kind affecting a capital value of £17,000,000 as far as London trams are concerned—I think that something like £9,000,000, speaking from memory, has been paid off—should be, if it is to be entered into, made known to the public before it is signed. [An HON. MEMBER: "So it would be!"] No. We know something about negotiations in regard to the making of agreements of this kind. We know that an agreement can be made by the London County Council and that there is no opportunity for the citizens of London to make any protest. [Laughter.] I hear the sniggering of hon. Members opposite who, perhaps, know very little about the municipal system of London. If these Bills were passed, and the County Council entered into this agreement, there would be no opportunity for the citizens of London to express any opinion until the year 1931, when the agreement would be in force, and working. The Bills are bad from beginning to end. They have been conceived in iniquity and in the interests of a private undertaking which, from the time that Mr. Yerks of Chicago came to this country, has always been desirous of getting complete control of the traffic system of London.

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Those hon. Members who have attended these Debates have always listened with interest to the arguments adduced, on the one hand, by the Liberal party, and on the other hand by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). We all agree that the hon. Member advances with sincerity the cause which he has fostered throughout; but in contending that London has not an opportunity of passing judgment on proposals of this kind, he has rather overlooked the events of recent history. The subject of the coordination of London traffic, in principle, was eagerly debated up and down
London on the occasion of the last London County Council election. It figured in the election addresses of the three parties, and London jeturned an unequivocal judgment in favour of these proposals.
Hon. Members who have been associated with these Debates, will be familiar with what are colloquially known as the four commandments. For the benefit of new-Members, I will reiterate the principles which the county council laid down as the basis of any arrangement, agreement, undertaking or system of co-ordination into which they might enter. All such proposals must comply with the four following stipulations: (1) That the interests of the travelling public should be adequately safeguarded, both as to service and fares; (2) the council's tramways, which will remain its property under the scheme, should be properly maintained; (3) the value of the county council's tramways undertaking should be adequately recognised, both as to capital and revenue, and (4) the interests of any employés displaced at a result of unified operations, should be safeguarded. Those principles underlie the proposals, and those are the principles of the agreement into which the county council are prepared to enter. The hon. Member for Mile End and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) made reference to one fact which we all regret, especially those on this side of the House, namely, that for the time being we are deprived of the presence here of two colleagues who have had long experience of London Government, Sir George Hume and Sir Cyril Cobb. When the hon. Member for Mile End and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green tried to draw the conclusion from that fact that London has given its verdict against these proposals, I think the facts are against them.

Mr. SCURR: I did not draw that conclusion merely from the fact that those two gentlemen are not now Members of this House; but I drew attention to the fact that we now have 36 seats out of 62 in London, and that there are two Liberal seats, and that 38 London Members are against these Bills.

9.0 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I do not want to misinterpret the statement of the
hon. Member. I do not recollect him referring to 36. If he will refer to the total number of votes east by the Conservative party and the Labour party in London, he will find that the results are very nearly identical. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not the Liberals count?"] The Liberals are again represented by two hon. Members, and if the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Mile End is to apply, the defeat of one Liberal Member might be ascribed to the same cause. I think that argument goes but a very little way. It is, undoubtedly, a fact that the figures of the last London County Council election, when this was a prominent question and eagerly debated, show that London, favoured these proposals.
The main question for us to-day is, that if London is to lose the benefit of these Bills, if this method of solving the problem is not to be followed, what is to take its place? There can be no doubt as to the urgency and importance of the question. I could quote the words used by the Lord Privy Seal last evening, in which he recognised the urgency and importance of this problem. It is scarcely necessary to remind him that for years past this problem has faced London, and that at long last an adequate method of solving it has been devised. That method has been recommended by leading Members of the Labour party. It has beer supported by Mr. Bevin, one of the Labour leaders, and a leader of the transport industry. It complies with all the reasonable stipulations for the protection of the rights of Londoners, and it solves a problem which has faced the people of London for such a long time past.
The hon. Member for Mile End said that the party which he represents have always been in favour of co-ordination. Co-ordination is the basis and foundation of these proposals. As much reference has been made to the personality of the head of the London electric railway, so-called the combine, may I say that so far as I am personally concerned I have no interest of any material kind either in the combine or any of its undertakings? My interest is solely that of a Londoner, the representative of a London constituency, and one who has devoted for some years a considerable amount of attention to London problems, particularly
the problems of traffic. I have the same interest in London and its traffic problems as the two hon. Members. That interest is shared, I am sure, by the Minister of Transport, and I commiserate with him that he has to take the attitude which the Government are adopting of scrapping these proposals, destroying all this work, setting at nought all the successful efforts which have been brought to such a high pitch, condemning London to a further delay, during which we are once more to explore the problem, tread the well-trodden paths, with which surely everyone must be familiar, once more delve into the difficulties with which everyone also is familiar, and once again to receive reports which, as Minister of Health, it will be difficult to find time to read. For what reason; for what advantage? Certainly not for the advantage of those who are at present experiencing the inconvenience of having to go to and from their work in overcrowded omnibuses and trams.

Mr. J. JONES: No sob-stuff.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I see no reason why hon. Members opposite should claim a monopoly of interest in a problem of this sort. To me it is a matter of regret that, on a subject like this, we cannot agree as to what is necessary and that a purely partisan attitude has characterised the Opposition all through the history of these Bills. It has led them to oppose the Measure in this House. It only means postponing for so much longer a solution of this urgent problem. I hope the House will hesitate before it destroys the work which has been done and which promises the only real and satisfactory solution of the problem of London's traffic facilities.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The, hon. Member who opened the Debate has quite correctly explained the reason why these Bills are submitted to the House for a Third Reading, and I desire to express my own appreciation, and that of my hon. Friends, for the fairness with which the late Chairman of Ways and Means handled this problem. He provided that the people of London and the country should have an opportunity of expressing their views upon these Bills, and by the provision which he made in the Resolution of the House
they are now before the House once again for consideration. The Government fully agree with everything that has been said as regards the urgency of the problem of London traffic. It is recognised as urgent and important by all parties, but the worst thing we could do would be to try and find a solution in a spirit of panic, in a spirit of undue haste, that is in the sense of being inclined to accept a solution which is wrong simply because of a feeling of panic on the general problem. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that the problem is urgent and that the Government should accept these Bills. They should remember that they have been in power for four years—

Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. I understand that these are private Bills submitted to this House for consideration. The Minister for Transport is now putting the case as to whether the Government should accept them. I understand that when a private Bill is submitted to this House it is the usual practice for the Government to take no side—

Mr. J. JONES: What a brain-wave!

Mr. BALFOUR: —in the discussion. The Minister may make certain observations for the guidance of the House, but it is new to me to hear, on the occasion of a private Bill, a Minister of the Government rise on the Front bench and declare the intentions of His Majesty's Government—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is taking a long time to put his point of Order. I understand that the Minister of Transport is interested in these Bills and, therefore, he is entitled to take part in the discussion.

Mr. BALFOUR: I agree that the Minister of Transport is interested, and should express his views, but he is now giving the vie-w of His Majesty'e Government.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not responsible for the way in which a Minister expresses his views.

Mr. MORRISON: I was informing the House that the Government regard this matter as one of very great urgency, and it may rest assured that it is receiving
the immediate attention of the Government. No undue time will be lost. The question arises as to whether the real problem of the congestion of London transport will be solved by these Bills. I submit that they will not solve the problem of congestion to any very material extent. They are incomplete so far as all forms of London transport are concerned. They do not deal with all the factors which contribute to the congestion of London streets. Hon. Members must recognise that London is a great sprawling centre, many centuries old, many of its streets very narrow and badly laid out, and that they cannot be put right in five minutes. It will cost an enormous amount of public money. Other factors also contribute to the congestion. There are not only omnibuses and trams, but commercial vehicles and taxi-cabs, private cars, which are a very serious and growing problem, and these things cannot be dealt with by means of these Bills. There are strict limits to the possibility of reducing the various classes of vehicles on the streets. Surely we should be wrong if we assumed that the situation is getting relatively worse than it was.
Let me refer to the operation of the London Traffic Act, for which I am afraid I cannot claim any credit, because I gave my hon. Friend the Member for White-chapel and St. George's (Mr. Gosling) a few difficulties when the Bill was going through. I have never hesitated to admit, and do not hesitate now to admit, that the operation of the London Traffic Act of 1924 and the work of the Traffic Advisory Committee have undoubtedly, so far as congestion is concerned, given us a state of things which is better than it would have been had the Act not been in operation. I am glad that my predecessor as Minister of Transport agrees with me in that respect. I think we should pay credit where it s due and not paint London traffic blacker than it is.
Two things the Act has done. It has more or less stabilised the development of omnibus traffic. It has, by the regulation of traffic in general, including the one-way traffic, eased a good deal of the problem that existed. But there is a continuous increase in the number of vehicles upon London streets, and the problems will be with us for some time. I cannot
see that these problems are to be effectively solved by the passage of the Bills now before us. We should not forget the virtues of London traffic. If the House remembers, as it does, the terrible problem of London's ancient history, its narrow streets and the masses of traffic, it will pause and give some praise to London drivers and London policemen for the really miraculous way in which they make the beat of their difficulties. I am not disposed to throw cold water upon the City of London and the way it handles one of the most terrific traffic problems in the world.
The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) referred to the number of accidents in London streets. It should not be assumed that a reduction in congestion on the streets will necessarily lead to a reduction in accidents. It may be that the lessening of congestion and the increase of the average speed of vehicles, far from reducing the number of fatalities, may conceivably increase it. The real question that is raised by these Bills is not so much a question of congestion as a question of the efficiency and of the development of the London transport system as an economic proposition. That is the real question that is raised, and it is upon that question that the House ought to give its verdict to-night. It has been urged from the benches opposite, both in this Debate and in previous discussions, that it is vitally important that there should be a cessation of competitive services and a development of co-ordination between all forms of London traffic. This discussion proceeds upon the basis that this fact was first discovered by hon. Members opposite. The people who urged economic co-ordination of these and other services were not the Conservative party; they were the Socialist party. Economic co-ordination is the economics of Socialism, but the economics of free competition are the economics of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. We congratulate the right hon. Member for West Woolwich, and I do so particularly because officially he represents me in this House, on his steady conversion to the economics of Socialism so far as London traffic is concerned.
The old theory was that competition between traffic services led to the best possible services for the travelling public at the lowest possible price. That was
the common illusion which afflicted everyone in examining various industrial problems. It was wrong. The public have to learn, as Lord Ashfield and I certainly have learned, that when an empty seat exists on an omnibus or tram or train, the capital charges and the running costs in respect of that seat must be met in some way. They may be met from additional charges to the users of the undertaking; they may be met by reduced wages to the workers in the undertaking; or they may be met by reducing the profits of the owners of the undertaking. But the economic fact has to be faced that competitive services involving a number of empty seats in any class of vehicle necessitate the capital and the maintenance charges in respect of those empty seats being met either out of the industry or out of the travelling public. That is the economic case for co-ordination.
It is particularly important when one is dealing with the traffic problem of London, with its peak load, with its density of load in the mommas and density of load in the afternoons and its lightness of load in the middle of the day. Every pound of capital expenditure in London transport must be used to the most economical advantage if the industry is to be as successful as it ought to be. Therefore the question between us is not the question of economic co-ordination. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have accepted the economics of Socialism in that respect, and we are glad. The sole issue is as to whether the monopoly which is necessary to secure co-ordination should be in some way public or accountable to the public or should be a private monopoly. That is the issue raised by these Bills, and it is not the smallest use boggling at it. The people of London are very nervous about a private traffic monopoly, and quite rightly when it is remembered that an unnecessary charge of a mere farthing on the average fare, multiplied by the thousands of millions of journeys which are made every year, would mean an annual charge on the people of about £3,600,000. Therefore the cost to the people of London is important and they are naturally concerned that the interests of the travelling public should be fully safeguarded.
The Labour party here, the Labour party on the London County Council, never adopted a policy of hopeless refusal to compromise on this matter. It was urged that there were possibilities of working agreements between the undertakings, outside legislation. The undertakers took the view that that was not possible without a statutory protection to the existing undertakers, which meant a private monopoly. It was also urged that the new capital coming into the transport industry should be public capital, so that gradually there might be an element of public ownership in the industry greater than is the case now. It was urged that there should be municipal control, or that there should be provision for purchase by the public at some time. AH of these possible compromises were steadily rejected by the promoters of the Bills. I do not say this as a matter of controversy or as an argument against the policy of the London County Council, which is no business of mine as Minister of Transport, but it so happens that whereas a great corporation like that of Birmingham, with which there has been so intimately associated the late Minister of Health, is keen on the municipal ownership of its great undertakings like tramways, omnibus, water, electricity, gas and even banks—the last name will always be honourably associated with the name of the late Minister of Health—and while it is the case that Birmingham is a Conservative municipality, and that this same keenness is a common experience in some county boroughs dominated by the Conservative party, yet the Conservative party on the London County Council has a great dislike of conducting any trading undertaking under municipal ownership. It does not boggle at drains and things like that, but it does boggle at trading undertakings. I do not lay that as a matter of criticism of the London County Council. It is entitled to have its views, but it does not increase the possibilities of compromise between those who believe in public control and those who believe in private ownership.
This Bill has now reached us as amended in Committee. I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain features of the Bill which seem to us to be unsatisfactory. The Bill was based in one respect upon a recommendation which
was made in the Blue Report; that is to say, that there should be a common management and a common fund, and the Bill does contemplate the establishment of some form of common fund. But, whereas the Blue Report recommended a common fund into which the whole receipts of the industry should pour, the Bill contemplates either a new common fund or two common funds, one of them already existing and not subject, as far as I can see, to the control set up under the Bill. Clause 16 of the Bill provides that all existing contracts must be respected, and therefore a new common fund could not interfere with the operation of the previous common fund. Clause 3 provides for the final control of the combined undertakings under a board of directors. There is no definite provision for municipal representation on that board of directors. Although Lord Ash-field has indicated that he would be willing to have one or two municipal directors out of, I think, 20, there is no guarantee even of that in the Clause. There is a provision for an advisory board, which is understood to be the body to deal with tramways, but it is advisory only, and the authoritative body is the board of directors.

Clause 3 makes it quite clear that the agreement, as such, cannot he revised by the Minister, but only the return on capital and the amount of ranking capital. The Minister of Transport cannot interfere with the agreement except in respect of the amount of ranking capital and the reasonable return upon such capital. Indeed, the agreement itself is rather extraordinary in that it does not exist so far. It is not scheduled to these Bills. It has not been before the Committee upstairs, and there was no intention of it being before the Committee of the House, at any rate in recent times. Therefore, the House is asked to give enabling powers to make an agreement, which is not before Parliament, and upon which we have no information whatever. The only provision is that the agreement is to lie upon the Table of the House, and Members know that is fairly illusory. If they do not know it, they will remember the discussion that took place upon the famous Clause of the Minister of Health in the Local Government Bill, when the Conservative Press and the Conservative Mem-
bers of the House were denouncing this lying on the Table business as utterly illusory and utterly unreal. There is no provision as to the length of the agreement, but it is understood unofficially that it was intended to be for 42 years, as was the case with the electricity undertakings under the Acts of 1925. It was admitted that, if the agreement lasted for 42 years, there could, in fact, be practically no revision at the end, because the absorption would have taken place. The Bill really leaves municipalities and companies outside the London County Council area to come in as best they can, and the municipalities owning tramways in extra-London, such as West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, Walthamstow and Leyton, have been badly treated in that they were supposed to be consulted by the reference to the advisory committee, but, in fact, they have not been so consulted.

The Bill makes it abundantly clear that among the first charges on the combined undertakings is the reasonable return on ranking capital, and, in my judgment, this might quite well work out that an increase of fares was in fact necessary to comply with the actual provisions. Now it is said that Clause 11 and Clause 12 give ample supervisory and controlling power to the Minister of Transport, If hon. Members will refer to those Clauses, they will find that that is not true. Clause 11, which deals with appeals to the Minister on fares and services, assumes first of all—and remember that these are always appeals by somebody to the Minister which is quite a different thing from continuous supervision on the part of a State Department—that the action to be complained of has already taken place; secondly, that the alteration of fares is material, and thirdly, that there has been a withdrawal or material reduction of services. When the complaint is made, the Minister may order an inquiry by the Advisory Committee, but even then no action can be taken by the Minister which would interfere with the reasonable return upon ranking capital. Now under Clause 12 a local authority may ask the Minister for developments or extensions, but it would appear that the Minister is by inference bound by the inquiry of the Advisory Committee, and, even so, he does not appear to be in a position to require the development or extension to be made, but only to determine the order or priority and that
order or priority shall only be observed as far as practicable. Clause 13 preserves the separate ownership of the undertakings as they develop and in that respect the provisions for control and coordination are incomplete.

It is true that outside the Bills certain undertakings have been given by Lord Ashfield and the London County Council. I am not going to challenge the bona fides of Lord Ashfield. I know him quite well. I have an enormous respect for his knowledge and judgment on London traffic matters. I shall meet him quite often on London traffic matters, and I shall be pleased to discuss with him in the most friendly way the common problems with which we are confronted. But, in dealing with Parliamentary Bills, we cannot deal with them on the basis that the head of the combine is a gentleman we like or a gentleman we do not like, because other chairmen of the combine may come. The directors may change, and it may be that they may not all take the same view as he takes.

The other point that was raised was whether the Bills could be amended. There is the title of the Bills which makes it exceedingly difficult to amend them according to the policy of the Government. Again, it is known to the House that the Government does not, and ought not, to control a private Bill upstairs. Even if we agreed with the promoters as to what we wanted and then went to the Private Bill Committee and said, "This is what we have agreed. Will the Committee be so good as to make the necessary Amendments in the Bill?" The Committee, exercising their judicial independence, might quite rightly tell us to mind our own business, and that it was no part of our job to run Private Bill Committees. They would be quite justified in doing so. In any case, the structure and fundamentals of the Bill are very difficult to amend in the direction in which they ought to be amended.

It has been said that at the London County Council election of March, 1928, a majority of those who support the Bills, or rather the Blue Report, which is not the same thing, were returned. I shall say something about the Blue Report and quote the authors of the Report to show that it is not the same. There was a majority of Municipal Reform members sent to the county council at that elec-
tion, but, if we take the votes of those who supported that Report and the votes of those against, we find that the Municipal Reform candidates got 284,000 votes and those opposed to them received altogether 318,000 votes, a majority against the proposals of 34,000 votes. Those are the facts. I need not dilate upon the results of the General Election, which is so close that everyone knows what happened, and I do not want to remind hon. Members opposite of the sad fate of the Conservatives.

In view of the fact that members of the Labour party always opposed these Bills; in view of the fact that this was a big issue in London at the General Election, and in view of the way in which the people have spoken upon it, it would be impossible for the Government to advise the House to pass these Bills. Hon. Members opposite have previously, without any justification, chided the Government for not keeping their Election pledges but to-night they are urging the Government to break those Election pledges. I cannot support any such view. It has been indicated—but I hope and I think it has not been done on behalf of the London Traffic Combine—that the building of necessary tubes is dependent on the fate of these Bills. I venture to say that that is a consideration which ought not to be advanced in connection with this matter—

Colonel ASHLEY: Why not?

Mr. MORRISON: My predecessor in office asks me "Why not"? It is an undesirable position to advance—and Lord Ashfield has never advanced it to me and I am quite sure will not be foolish enough to advance it—that unless Bills which confer a substantial private monopoly in London traffic are passed, certain traffic undertakers will refuse to do their duty to the travelling public. To use the unemployed in this connection seems to be shameful but that really is the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite when all their statements are boiled down. I do not believe for a moment that it is the position of Lord Ashfield. I believe he will be willing to co-operate with my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and with myself as Minister of Transport, with a view to these extensions being achieved, particularly having regard to other legislation
which is going through the House of Commons. It has been urged that the Government, having been in office for five weeks ought to have solved this problem. May I remind hon. Members opposite that this problem was before the last Government throughout the whole of its existence? It was before previous Conservative and Coalition Governments. If Members read the White Taper issued by the Traffic Advisory Committee on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bills, they will find that the people who have a right to complain are the Traffic Advisory Committee and the people against whom they have a right to complain are the previous Government and my predecessor in office. Repeatedly the Committee were asked to consider the problem. Repeatedly the Committee said that they must have a decision as to Government policy on London traffic. Repeatedly the last Government evaded making any pronouncement of Government policy for dealing with The problem. It was because the previous Government, with the Minister of Transport in control, refused to come to a decision that these Bills were ultimately introduced. It is impossible in the time at my disposal to go through the whole history of the matter but hon. Members will find from that White Paper that the previous Government delayed and delayed and that a grave responsibility rests upon them in this connection.
The Government cannot advise Parliament to pass these Bills. I say, as I said before, that we regard the problem of London traffic as one of great urgency. Co-ordination is necessary but we cannot submit to a permanent private monopoly in London traffic. There must be public accountability and public control. We do not rule out, and neither I am sure do cither of the other parties, the question of public ownership, or some form of public ownership in London traffic operations, any more than Birmingham or Berlin has ruled out that particular solution. We shall immediately examine the problem. I shall be pleased to confer with the representatives of the London County Council and the Combine. I assure them that, although the Government cannot agree with them on these Bills, we are advising the House in no vindictive spirit, and in no spirit of personal spite against the
promoters of the Bills. Good will remains and can be continued. Although the House will, in all probability, reject these Bills, as far as we are concerned the door is open to further consultation, and the Government fully accepts its responsibility in this urgent matter.

Colonel ASHLEY: I confess to a profound feeling of disappointment and depression after listening to the speech of the Minister. To what does his speech amount? He gave us a learned dissertation on various clauses of the Bill; he told us some things about the Parliamentary elections and the County Council elections which seemed to me wholly irrelevant, but all that he said amounted to this—that the Government is to explore the position further. Does that carry us any further? The Minister himself said that the position has been explored for 15 or 20 years. In his position, with access to all the documents, he must know that the difficulties of solving this question are very great indeed, especially owing to the antagonism between municipal and private enterprise. Here we have two Bills in which, at long last, municipal enterprise represented by the London County Council, and private enterprise, represented by Lord Ashfield's Combine, have come to an agreement. Then the hon. Gentleman calmly says that he wishes to explore the position further and asks the House to reject these excellent Bills. It is really a crying scandal that because hon. Members opposite take, as they are perfectly entitled to do, a certain view about municipal enterprise in London traffic, therefore, London should have to wait a great many years longer for a solution of the existing problem. Has the hon. Gentleman been at Finsbury Park and other places to see the congestion there every morning and every evening? Have hon. Gentlemen opposite no consideration for the feelings of women and children—

Mr. MORRISON: May I inform the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it has been my lot to travel about London in exactly the same way as the common people and I know these problems from personal experience.

Colonel ASHLEY: Then it is all the more disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman
knowing the conditions which prevail should have come to such a decision. Apart from the unhappy controversy between municipal and private enterprise, surely hon. Gentlemen must admit that though these Bills will not solve the problem—I doubt if it ever will be completely solved—yet they go a long way towards solving the problem. Has not the hon. Gentleman read the evidence which Lord Ashfield gave before the Select Committee? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a statement such as Lord Ashfield then made, given to a public Committee of the House of Commons, is equivalent to a pledge. Lord Ashfield said he would be prepared, if given Parliamentary powers, to proceed with the Finsbury Park Tube directly these Bills became law. Is not that a great advance and something which helps London traffic? To say that the Combine are holding a pistol at the heads of the House of Commons or anybody else is farcical. The fact is that they cannot raise the money under present conditions, but if they had the whole or most of the London traffic they could.
Here you have the London County Council, elected by the electors of London, approving of these Bills. Are hon. Members opposite so undemocratic as to think that because the London County Council does not at present represent their views, it is not a body to whose views attention ought to be paid? Here we have a Bill which is fathered by a democratically-elected assembly and supported by a combination which, whatever hon. Members may think of its methods, has given to London the finest system of traffic in the world. They come to you, and they say, "We consider these Bills to be, not perfect, but a great advance on present conditions, and if you will allow us, the popularly elected body and the private enterprise, to pool our resources and have a common management, we will proceed at once to spend no less a sum than £5,500,000 on the Finsbury Park Tube, which will provide a tube seven miles long and which will at long last, at any rate in the North-East of London, provide adequate and proper travelling facilities for the unhappy people who now have to travel under such deplorable conditions." It is really very sad indeed to sit here, as I have done from half-past seven, and
listen to these discussions about municipal enterprise and private enterprise, these small criticisms of the details of the Bill, and to hear not a word said about the thing that really matters, namely, as to whether or not these Bills will improve the travelling facilities for the wage earners of London. There was not a word on that point from the Minister of Transport.
Why cannot we go on with these Bills? If they go through, there is nothing to prevent hon. Members opposite, if they have time and power, proceeding with their plan of municipalising the whole of the traffic of this great city. They are perfectly entitled to hold that as being the best ultimate solution, but supposing these Bills passed into law, how will their task be made more difficult than it is now? I should say it would be made easier, because it is easier to municipalise one undertaking than several undertakings. What it comes to—and I promise not to speak at any length at all, because other hon. Members wish to speak—is that because hon. Members opposite have made certain political attacks in the London County Council on their political opponents, the people of London are to go without proper travelling facilities and to wait until hon. Members opposite bring in their comprehensive Bill, which I promise them will be a very long time, because at the next General Election London will remember how the party opposite treated them on this question.

Mr. MARLEY: It amuses one who is an old Member, but a newcomer to this House, to notice that, while on nearly every other occasion in this House hon. Members opposite talk very freely about the benefits of open and free competition, as regards London traffic they are convinced that competition is unhealthy, from the point of view both of the public and of the owners of the vehicles used. We hope that hon. Members opposite will progress along that road of economic research and try to understand the motives which drive this party forward from success to success as election follows election. As the representative of a London constituency at a former period, I thought, when these Bills first came before the House, of the undue haste with which they were being hustled
through, and if I had had no previous knowledge of the House or of the methods of legislation on particular occasions, I should have been rather suspicious of the methods being employed in this particular case.
It may be that there is no attempt to provide an immediate solution of the London traffic problem, it may be that the Minister is taking a very responsible action in proposing that the House should not proceed with these Bills, but, I suggest that he would be taking a much more serious decision in regard to the future welfare of London if he were to suggest that we should proceed with them, because, in spite of what was said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley), I would suggest that there is no provision that any party to any agreement under the Bill may be able to go on and develop their own part of the undertaking without the consent of the other party or without referring the matter to arbitration, so that publicly controlled traffic within the meaning of this Bill would cease, because we are told that the full representation of the public would be two members on the board of directors of the common fund, though that is only verbal and not contained in any Schedule. How far, then, could we on this side, who agree with the policy of the public control of municipal traffic and of all traffic, support a Bill which proposes to hand over to a monopoly the whole or the majority of the traffic of London?
We plead with hon. Members opposite, who may be persuaded by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) to vote for these Bills, to remember that, because it happens to be a London Measure, they should not take action against the people of London which they would not dare to take against the people in their own constituencies, where they already have municipal control of their own traffic systems. They ought not to come to this House and, because London is such a great lollipop, spread all over the place, with such a heterogeneous number of boroughs and such a concatenation of overlapping authorities, with no great corporate spirit so far developed—though it is being developed, chiefly at the inspiration of the party on these benches—vote against municipal control of London's traffic. They them-
selves always claim, in their own municipalities in the North and in the Midlands, to whatever party they may belong, the absolute right to put under municipal control such things as traffic, gas, electricity, and other services essential to the public welfare, yet, when it comes to London, the same people are claiming to say that London shall be handed over to a private combine for 40, 50 or 60 years. I hope that hon. Members opposite who might be persuaded to think differently in regard to London problems from the way in which they think in regard to their own particular areas, will think twice before supporting this Bill, and, if they do not want to let down their own friends on those benches, they can meet the case by abstaining from voting.
The problem of the growth of the traffic of London has become more and more difficult, as the Minister suggested, because of the increase in the number of private vehicles upon the roads, and the suggested control under the Combine is not going to relieve the traffic to any great extent, and is certainly not going to relieve it immediately. I should like to suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that the 1924 Traffic Act was the first suggestion of some control over London's surface traffic; and this Bill goes further in that direction, but it does so by handing over the complete development of that traffic to a Combine which is largely controlled as a private enterprise. We are not prepared on this side of the House to further a proposal of that kind. An hon. Gentleman opposite said openly and frankly that he had no intention of speaking, because he was interested in this matter. We on this side do not take the view that we do because we are personally interested in the London County Council or disinterested in the Combine. It is because a vital principle is involved, and, because the development of London depends on whether the traffic is controlled and regulated, we hope that there will be some public, democratic and easily accessible body, which is easily susceptible to public feeling. That is not provided by either of these two enabling Bills. In regard to the control of the common fund there is already a common fund in existence which cannot be altered by any subsequent agreement made by the Minister, and the amount of latitude
allowed to the Minister is very restricted in these Bills, and he can only move in a certain direction in regard to capital, even if he had the opportunity and the consent of the House.
My final word is to warn Members in regard to the Press atmosphere which has been created with regard to the congestion of London. Those who throw their minds back to the appearance of the independent omnibuses will remember that as soon as the first independent omnibus appeared, there came congestion of traffic. I will suggest to hon. Members opposite that there are parts of the country not so susceptible to House of Commons influence where congestion exists to a much more serious degree. There are influences in the House which can move, and do move, when competition comes into conflict with their particular interest in London traffic. With these private enterprise omnibuses came competition and congestion, and the Press immediately began to talk about pirate omnibuses, and aroused public opinion against them. In the Press you continually see advertisements telling you the number of travellers on the Underground and the omnibuses. They do not serve to add a single passenger to the Traffic Combine, but they serve, is they say in fleet Street, to sweeten the Press. This great scare has been raised ingenuously with a great deal of genius and tact and skill, by those who have other interests to serve rather than those of the public.

10.0 p.m.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: We find that this question has been thrown into the cockpit of party politics because of a certain political line taken at the recent Election, and hon. Members opposite find that, however much they are pledged to co-ordination, they are bound to oppose the present Bills. Probably I had something to do with starting these Bills. I was speaking to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works at the Bar of the House at the time the Bills were going through, and he said, "Co-ordination is inevitable. We cannot get it by nationalisation, and I am prepared to support co-ordination, providing we can get some control of the fares and of the interest that is to be paid on the capital."

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Does the hon. Gentleman say that I made a statement of that sort?

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: You did.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Gentleman's memory or something else is leading him very much astray. I made a speech from that Box in the last Debate, and I put my position in regard to these Bills as clearly as a man could. I believe in co-ordination, and so do we all; but we are not going to have the traffic of London handed over to a private company. I will remind the hon. Member that on that occasion I said that most of those Members who were foremost in supporting these Bills would be defeated at the Election. A Tory Member offered to bet me a "fiver" that I would be wrong, and I am sorry that I did not take him on.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: The time of which I am speaking was when the private Bill was going through in the Government of 1924. It has nothing to do with these two Bills at present before the House. What makes me stick to my recollection is that I thought the declaration so strange and informing that I went direct to Lord Ashfield and told him what the right hon. Gentleman had said. Not only did I go to Lord Ashfield, but I went to the County Council and told them the same thing. I think, therefore, that I was the cause of these negotiations being started. What troubles me is what is going to happen now. It is evident that these Bill" will be thrown out. What will happen then? Those who have had anything to do with local affairs know the trouble of getting certain parties together. Twenty-five years ago there was trouble about an underground convenience in Crystal Palace Parade. Four local authorities were interested—Croydon, Camberwell, Lambeth and Penge—and the Crystal Palace authorities were also interested. It has taken 25 years to get that convenience put down there: and I predict that what will happen now is that -for the next two years Parliament will be too much taken up with other things to look at projects of this kind and that London's traffic will be relegated to a backward position.
I was sorry to hear some of the things which were said of Lord Ashfield, but
the attack on Lord Ashfield was nothing like the attacks made upon him 20 years ago. I can remember the first Traffic Commission, which sat for three years taking evidence and reported in 1906. One of the recommendations of that Commission was that the motor omnibus need not be considered, that it was not a practical proposition. Lord Ashfield, however, stuck to motor omnibuses and spent £100,000 on trying to develop them, and it is because of the advent of the motor omnibus that there are these tramway difficulties. If it had not been for the omnibuses running the trains nearly off their wheels—[Laughter.] Yes, it was only through the Traffic Committee that the tramways were enabled to get back a little of what they had been losing. Four or five years ago they were losing at the rate of £250,000 a year, but because the Traffic Committee got things into shape and restricted the number of omnibuses the tramway position began to improve. If there is to be free competition, I should not bother, if I were Lord Ashfield. I should say, "I can make money all right; there is no trouble about my making money; the trams can do what they like." If it had not been for the Traffic Committee, the tramways would have been more bankrupt than they are now.

Mr. HARRIS: They are not bankrupt.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) gloried in having the support of the. Liberal party on this particular matter. Look at them! My interest in the matter goes back to a time 25 years ago when I supported the trains of London and the development of electricity. Lord Banbury refused at that time to allow the trams to go across the bridges, and I took the field against Lord Banbury and turned him out. Hon. Members cannot say, therefore, that those of us sitting on this side of the House have no interest in the affairs of London.

Mr. HARRIS: Are the trams bankrupt! [Interruption.]

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Anybody who reads the Blue Report and sees the recommendations of the Committee and knows that control is now in the hands of the Minister of Transport, will regret that we are not in a position to consider this question in the House apart from party politics.

Mr. J. JONES: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this matter as a representative of the orphans of the storm. Throughout the speeches there has been no reference to the authorities outside the London County Council area. We are always looked upon as the poor relations of London proper. The time may come when we may have some influence upon the problem connected with London's traffic, but the authority set up under this Bill leaves us absolutely out in the cold. There are to be two representatives out of 20 sitting upon the Committee, according to this Bill, and we know where the two will come from. They will come from the London County Council, and that body is simply an annexe of the Conservative Central Association. So far as Labour is concerned, we are down and out—but we are not standing it! We are down-in-here and you are not going to have it all your own way! A hundred and fifteen years ago—[Laughter]—wait a minute—a great General arrived in London and was feted. He associated with all the great people of London. He had helped to win the Battle of Waterloo—just as we are going to win the battle of Waterloo Bridge. When he left London at the end of his visit he was asked by one of our great men what he thought of London, and he said, "What a magnificent city to sack." The Germans are not sacking us now; it is the international financiers who are trying to sack London.
What control are we to have over the people who have got their money in London's transport? None at all. Lord Ashfield is a splendid man, he knows transport from A to Z; but we also know him from A to Z, and the first interest that he has got, naturally, as the head of this great combine, is the interest of his shareholders. He must have, or else he would not have his job for long. I know something! Therefore, we outer London authorities feel that we are simply there to be exploited. We have spent £2,000,000 upon our tramway-system. We give lower fares than are to be found in almost any other part of the country. Take the fares for men going to the docks and children to the parks; it is a halfpenny fare from Custom House in Silvertown up to Epping Forest. Will Lord Ashfield or any of the rest of them who are interested in these Bills give the
same facilities to enable children to get fresh air, give them a chance to get further out of London instead of living in the slums and the fœtid atmosphere in which they have to live at present. No. They want to concentrate control, and they will give us two representatives out of 20—just to show there is no ill feeling. But it is not coming off—not in these trousers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I promised Mr. Speaker that I would not speak longer than five minutes, and the less I say the better it will be for the other side. I want to remind the House that London is after all something more than a city, it is the capital of the Empire—the place the other people talk about, those people who believe in waving the Union Jack in front of the union jackasses. They are the only people who believe in the Empire. We have not got an Empire, except the Empire at Stratford, and there it costs us 6d. for the cheapest seat.
London traffic can be co-ordinated, but under public control. I go down to Manchester. What do I find? All forms of traffic are under the control of the Manchester City Corporation. I stay with a friend of mine whose place is just outside the boundary of the City of Manchester. The tram fare to Albert Square is 2½d. but in my ignorance I once got on an omnibus. The omnibus conductor asked me for 5d. I said "The fare is 2½d., my friend told me so" and the conductor replied "But this is a private omnibus and it is not allowed to compete with the municipal undertakings." A Tory Government allowed that legislation to go through! The Manchester City Corporation had insisted that they were the controlling authority for transport within their own city area. We in West Ham cannot get such powers. We asked Parliament for permission to run omnibuses to the Island of Silver-town—it is an island, that is the reason why I am here. We asked power to run omnibuses where no trams could be run, because of the swing bridges and level crossings, and we were refused the right to run omnibuses. The result is that these poor people have to walk two or three miles in order to get to their work simply because this House would not grant us facilities to run omnibuses. The people whom I represent have not got one single consideration in these Bills, simply because they are poor. The
people whom I represent do not count with all these high and mighty gentlemen who have their own motor cars to take them home at night and who are not always fully sensible.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Speak for yourself.

Mr. JONES: Have I ever pleaded guilty to being anything else? At any rate, I have always tried to be human, and some hon. Members opposite have never yet been human. We are opposing these Bills, because they do not recognise the responsibility which has been placed upon the Members of this House. Consequently, we intend to vote against this Bill, because we consider that it is an outrage on public decency. I shall vote against this Measure because it is supported by those who are in favour of foreign interests, and we all know that a great part of the capital of the traffic Combine is American capital. I do not mind Americans exploiting their own country, but I object to them coming over here to exploit us. Most of the money which is invested in the Traffic Combine comes from the United States of America. They have so much money that they do not know what to do with it, but they know "who to do with it." Therefore, as an extra London Member, representing an authority which has invested £2,000,000 in the transport system, I am going to oppose this Bill for all I am worth, and I hope hon. Members opposite will accept their defeat in a good spirit.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I hope notice will be taken of the compliment which has been paid to the Conservative Central Office by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones). If it is a fact that the London County Council is an annexe of the Central Conservative Office, it is only so because that organisation has been able to convince the democracy of London that adherence to Conservative principles is the best thing for the great area of London. I represent a constituency which is dependent from day to day upon the provision which is made for London traffic, and, as a Conservative at the last Election, I pledged myself time after time to the electors that if returned I would do all that I could to get for them the advantages which in my opinion these traffic Bills
will give to them. I speak also as one who uses the ordinary means of traffic in London constantly in my daily life, and, therefore, have a full opportunity of judging the conditions and knowing the necessities of the people among whom I live and work. Unfortunately, the Socialist party in this House, while supporting the general proposition about coordination, have, in their desire to make an attack upon a particularly successful and advantageous piece of private enterprise, not only attacked co-ordination, but have tried to support that attack by a campaign of misrepresentation, which I am glad to find they have now jettisoned and have not attempted to put forward in this House.
On the last occasion when these Bills were before the House, we heard a great deal from Gentlemen who now occupy the benches opposite about the inevitable increase of fares which must take place if these Bills were sanctioned by Parliament. That which was said in this House by them lost nothing in the repeating to the electors of London during the last General Election—[An HON. MEMBER: "To your cost!"] I agree that it was to our cost, because very often one General Election is not enough to stop the influence of misrepresentation such as was indulged in by hon. Members opposite. But for hon. Members opposite to repeat before the electorate the misrepresentations which some of them made in this House when these Bills were here before—to repeat those statements after the definite Parliamentary undertakings which were given in this House and before committees of this House, was a type of electioneering which is happily infrequent, and which, while it may bring a reward at one election, cannot bring other than disaster on the party who use it when tested on a second occasion.
Let me for one moment, while congratulating them upon having abandoned those misrepresentations, turn to the matters that they have put forward. The suggestion now made is that there is no effective public control of any kind in these Bills. It is agreed that coordination is necessary; it is agreed that co-ordination in London traffic would not only be of great benefit to the people of London, but also that it would go a very long way towards relieving the very
serious traffic problem that we have. It is also agreed on all sides that you cannot get co-ordination without creating some type of monopoly; and I venture to think, with all deference to those opposite who believe that there is only one form of monopoly that is permissible and economic, that the best form of monopoly in matters of this kind is that monopoly which is largely private enterprise but which is supervised by public control. That is exactly what you have in these Bills. When you have the whole of your traffic under the supervision and control and in the ownership of a public authority, the only watchdogs on that monopoly are themselves public servants, very often of the same authority; but, if you have the type of monopoly which these Bills set up, then every public authority, except in this case the County Council, is a watchdog for the public interest, and has the fullest opportunity of making representations if that monopoly is used against the public of the London area.
Hon. Members have talked a great deal about the lack of control, about the lack of opportunity to make representations, but they have been extremely careful not to refer to the provisions of the Bill. If they had referred to them they would have found that one of the first conditions of the validity of any agreement is that it should be submitted to every local authority owning a tramway or light railway undertaking, and that any representations made by such authorities must be considered. Then there is a provision, first of all, for submitting the matter to the Minister of Transport, and, thirdly, a provision which ensures that Parliament shall ultimately have the right to decide whether the agreement shall he entered into. The control does not end there, because by Clause 11 there is a perpetual control over the matter of fares. It is said that control is illusory, because one of the principles which shall govern the general management of the monopoly is that it shall be so managed as to make a reasonable return upon the capital. But inasmuch as the capital of the private undertaking and of the public undertaking which is joined to the Combine is to he assessed according to the same principle, that is merely a provision that the ratepayers who pay their rates to the London County Council shall not have the property of the London County
Council squandered, and that the County Council and the ratepayers shall get a fair return upon the capital invested in the undertaking, and it is as much a condition for the protection of the rate-paying public of London as it is a protection for anyone else concerned with the monopoly set up by the Bill.
It is abundantly clear that whenever there is any question of alteration of fares, or withdrawal or reduction of services, there is not only ample provision for that matter being inquired into, but complete and almost absolute power given to the Minister of Transport to take care that the public interest is served and protected. Not only is this monopoly controlled as to fares in the interest of the public, but equally it is controlled as to the developments that are necessary in the public interest. If a system of monopoly must be adopted, there is no better form of monopoly than the one that gives us an interest in enterprise, but, at the same time, such popular control as ensures that that enterprise shall be used for the development of those public services which are essential in the public interest of the great population of the London area.
May I say a further word in amplification of something that was put by the late Minister of Transport. He suggested that, whether ultimately this country adopts the policy of nationalisation or municipalisation or not, this Bill can in no way hinder hon. Members opposite in the promotion and the successful carrying out of that policy, if they are successful. If they really believe in their policy of municipalisation, or nationalisation, this Bill is in reality something that will help them very considerably, quite apart from the fact that they own only one undertaking, because, when they took over the coordinated system, they would be taking over a system which would be efficient and in respect of which they would not have to go through the whole processes of co-ordination and systemisation which would be so necessary, and is so necessary, to the London traffic system at the present time. Frankly, I submit that, in order to gain an electoral advantage by misrepresentation, hon. Members opposite, possibly, not expecting the result which happened at the last election, have shut themselves up—[An
HON. MEMBER: "Did you expect it?"] I can only speak for my own constituency. I expected the majority that I got. With regard to other matters, the only conclusion to which one can come is that hon. Members opposite, not, perhaps, expecting that they would be called upon to carry out the responsibility of dealing with unemployment, so bound themselves by misrepresentation and by electoral pledges that they are now prevented in common honesty from taking the only step which they know will enable them to deal with two great problems, one, the London traffic system, and the other the enormous amount of unemployment which still exists in the London area.

Mr. NAYLOR: While I join in the view expressed by certain Members on the other side of the House that this is a question which ought not to be put into the cockpit of party politics, I feel that after what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) something ought to be said in answer to the allegations which he has made. He charged the party on this side of the House with misrepresentation during the General Election on this question of the co-ordination of passenger traffic, but he made no attempt to show in what that misrepresentation consisted.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: If the hon. Member asks me, I will tell him at once.

Mr. NAYLOR: No, I am not asking the hon. and learned Member. I am merely stating the fact, but I am not asking for any further observations on the part of the hon. and learned Member. He knows perfectly well that the whole of the arguments for and against these two Bills were fully stated in this House before the General Election took place. If there was any misrepresentation, that misrepresentation could have been exposed at the time when the Bills were being considered by this House. As a matter of fact, we know that certain Members on the other side of the House who, fortunately or unfortunately, are not with us to-night, had to be corrected by Members on the Labour side of the House with regard to certain important statements which they made when these Bills were before the people of London.
It is rather significant that those Members who had the promotion of the Bills in the previous Parliament are no longer with us. Where, to-night, is the late Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson); where is the late Member for Fulham (Sir C. Cobb); where is the late Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume)? Where is the Conservative party to-day? That party is in the cold shadow of opposition. Those Members who have departed have been put into cold storage from which, some day, possibly, they may be picked out once more. It is rather interesting that the leader of the party in favour of the Bills, to-night, is the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who nearly lost his seat, mainly because these Bills were opposed by a large number of his constituents. He has tried to make out a case for the Bills, and suggested that the travelling facilities in London and the improvement of those facilities depend upon the passing of these Bills. He did not explain in what way the travelling facilities are to be improved by the passing of the Bill.
The main issue as presented to us by speakers on the other side of the House has been the traffic problem of London. Against the traffic problem of London I put the interests of the travelling public of London. If the right hon Member for West Woolwich meant that taking off part of the omnibus services and part of the tramway services with a view to relieving the traffic problem is a reason for supporting these Bills, I suggest that the people of London who use these passenger conveyances are lens concerned with the traffic problem, as a traffic problem, than they are about the facility with which they can pass from one part of London to another. They are also concerned as to what they may have to pay for the privilege of passing from one end of London to the other, in the event of these Bills being passed.
We have heard something about the protection afforded by certain Clauses of the Bill in regard to these possible disadvantages. Why is it that we are told again and again that if we pass these Bills certain new tubes will be laid down in London? The right hon. Member for West Woolwich was more guarded to-night in this respect than the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth was in the last Parliament. The right hon
Member merely mentioned the question of the tube from Finsbury Park, northward. If this House refuses to pass these two Bills, why are we to be denied even the one tube from Finsbury Park to the north?

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: It will not pay.

Mr. NAYLOR: What is there in the refusal to pass these Bills that is going to make it impossible for Lord Ashfield to give us this North London tube? We in the South-East of London think that our service so far as passenger traffic is concerned is in need of great improvement. We consider that these tubes should be made a question of service for the public and that we can best be served by making public service a public responsibility. It is from that point of view that we are asking the House not to pass these Bills to-night. If Lord Ashfield or if the hon. Members who are supporting this attempt at legislation are so concerned about the interests of the travelling public in London, let them get on with these tube extensions without asking for a monopoly as the price London will have to pay for them.
Are the interests of the travelling public of London better served by eliminating either the omnibuses or the tram services? That is one of the objects of this so-called co-ordination. They say that they cannot get a co-ordination of the passenger traffic unless they have a monopoly, but is it not obvious that they can only make these improvements by so altering the passenger traffic system of London in such a way as to yield a greater profit to the Combine, and thereby enable them to open out in these new directions. I hope we shall give effect to the opinion which the people of London undoubtedly expressed at the last election on these two Bills. The people of London have told us that they do not want them, and I think we can safely leave it to the Ministry of Transport to consider what methods are necessary to deal with the traffic problem as such: but "hands off the people's trams." If this House passes these Bills the people of London will have been betrayed into a position in which they will be unable to help themselves, and I therefore ask the House to reject the Measures.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Whatever decision the House comes to on these Bills, I think it is desirable that the new Members of the House should have before them from the Chairman of the Select Committee to whom the Bills were referred, the reasons, shortly, which made that Committee come to what on the evidence before them was the only possible conclusion. The House is well aware that the Committee sat for 12 long days and heard evidence on every point and every proposal in connection with these Bills. The whole difficulty had been caused by two things. First, the invention of the motor omnibus and, secondly, the increased desire of the London people to travel. In 1920 the competition of the motor omnibus and other means of traffic had arrived at such a point that the London County Council tramway system resulted in a loss of £590,000, which had to be found by the ratepayers. It is common ground that no tramways in this country, or even in the world, are better managed than those of the London County Council. The competition increased, and in 1923 there was a strike on the London tramways system, owing, to the desire for an increased wage necessitated by the increased cost of living. There was no money and no prospect of improvement in the tramway receipts.
A court of inquiry that was then held said that the cause of the lack of receipts was entirely competition, and the Government of that day, in 1924, accepted the position and passed the London Traffic Act of 1924. That Act did two things. First of all it enabled the Minister of Transport to limit the competition, and more particularly the competition with the tramways. The tramways of London were bolstered up by a limitation of the competition on the tramway routes. There was not the slightest doubt that if the tramways had had to stand against the competition of the motor omnibuses, they could not have survived a year. That was the position in which London traffic was then placed. The Act also set up an Advisory Committee. That Committee sat for some time, and in 192? produced the Blue Report. The Blue Report was unanimous in declaring that it was absolutely necessary to have coordination of omnibuses, trams and tubes, that otherwise it would be impossible for
any of them to survive, and London would be badly served. At that time there was competition between the omnibuses and the tubes.
It is suggested now that there is nothing to show how a common fund or common management will improve traffic in London. That view was negatived by the evidence we had that under the combination that already existed, coupled with the assistance of the Trade Facilities Act, the South London tube had been remodelled and a new tube constructed to Morden. It is admitted by everyone that three new tubes are essential to carry the large masses of Londoners who are coming in and going out—one on the North-East of London, one on the East of London and the third on the South-East of London. It was proved before us, and no one ventured to contradict the statement, that not a single shilling could be put into any London traffic enterprise as matters then stood. The Blue Report stated that the problem was one of great urgency, that there was no chance of getting any capital into the industry, and that London was likely to be left in a grave position. We had further evidence that the common pool had succeeded beyond trial or experiment and had resulted in this—that the tubes had been made reasonably paying competition. I am absolutely convinced that the money which in the last two years has gone to pay the small dividends that the tubes are paying to-day, has been provided by the motor omnibus company of London.
When the House sees that from this system the combination has been rendered reasonably profitable, that it is able to raise fresh money, that it has rebuilt an old tube and built a new one, it does not require very much foresight to see the good results that would follow if the same system were extended to the tramways which are at present left to themselves. At present the North Middlesex tramways and those of some of the local authorities round London can hardly make ends meet. Unless something is done the tramway system must fail and the very large amount of money which the London County Council have invested in the tramways will be lost. Under those conditions, what were we to do? We had this scheme before us. In spite of the requests which each
member of the Committee made for other schemes to be put forward, no scheme was put forward, and no suggestion was made of any municipal management. Municipal management is itself impossible. The boundary for the London traffic area goes far beyond municipal boundaries, and the London County Council by being a tramway owner has put itself out of court. There is no municipal control of tramways to-day that goes beyond its own boundaries. In Sheffield the other day they entered into a combine with the railway company for all traffic outside their own boundaries.
The Committee, therefore, carne to the conclusion that the only possible course, having regard to the urgency of the matter, was to use this method of the common pool and common management that was offered to us and we devoted ourselves to securing the greatest possible control that it was possible to obtain. I defy any Member to suggest a better method of control to secure the interest of the public than that in this Bill. Opportunity is given to any local authority in the area to make representations. The Minister of Transport has control over the services and fares. In fact, there is no part of the Bill which is not subject to his control. There has never been a greater measure of public control in any matter of this kind. I think it is right that the House should know what the Committee did and, in coming to a decision on these matters, I wish the House to recognise that they will be undertaking a great responsibility, if they leave London traffic in its present state. New tube railways are essential for dealing with the problem, and evidence was given that, without this co-operation or combination, without the common fund and common management, not a single shilling could be raised for making new tube railways. If these Bulls are now thrown out, a matter which is of great urgency to London will have to stand over.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Earlier in the Debate I interrupted the speech of the Minister to raise a point of Order which I regard as of great constitutional importance. I said that this was the first time since I entered the House of Commons that I had ever heard from the Ministerial Front Bench a clear pronouncement of Government policy made upon a private
Bill. It is a matter which I think ought not to be allowed to pass without drawing the attention of hon. Members to it—particularly the attention of those hon. Members who have recently come into this House. The Minister stated the Government position quite clearly, and, after I had raised my point of Order, he went on to make it even more clear. He gave a short and simple statement of the Socialist programme and policy and said that these Measures did not comply with that policy. [Interruption.] I rise now in difficult circumstances, at this late hour, to put in a plea for the right of citizens of this country to present Bills to the House of Commons, to be dealt with here by an impartial tribunal of the whole House, irrespective of party politics.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to remind the House that when these Bills were before the House on the previous occasion the Minister of Transport at that time definitely advised the House to pass them? I have exercised a similar right to-night by definitely advising the House not to pass them.

Mr. BALFOUR: I was not unmindful of all that had fallen from my right hon. and gallant Friend, the ex-Minister of Transport, and I watched with great care, and not without grave anxiety, as is well known to many hon. Friends of mine on this side, whether he passed at any time just that borderline which would have compelled me, as one of his supporters, to rise and make exactly the remarks which I am making to-night. I should have done so without hesitation had he ventured to cross that borderline, but I was glad to note, grave as my anxiety was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite are quite entitled to those derisive cheers, but grave as my anxiety was, he never crossed that borderline. My right hon. and gallant Friend, on those occasions when private Bills were before this House, always submitted it as the view of the Ministry that a certain course was expedient in the public interest, and if the Minister had risen to-night and said,

as Minister of Transport, that it was expedient in the public interest to advise the House on such and such a course, I should not have complained. But the hon. Gentleman did not do that. He adumbrated the theory and practice of Socialism and said, "This Bill does not comply with them." He further laid down the gage to the country that the citizens of this country have no right to come to this Commons House of Parliament and be judged and tried by hon. Members of this House, but said that they were to be judged by His Majesty's Government.

I ask all hon. Members, Have we sunk to this condition so soon during the administration of hon. Members opposite, that the citizens of this country no longer need follow the procedure laid down by this House, of appearing before a tribunal upstairs, set up by His Majesty's Government of the day, to hear the evidence of both sides and give their verdict on that evidence? [Interruption.] "No," they say, "You can go through all this procedure and spend your money on it, and when it is all done our Star Chamber has already prejudged the case and given its decision, and citizens have no longer any rights in the matter." The fate of this Bill is immaterial to me. I ask nothing better than that the Minister of Transport should have said to this House, in a constitutional manner, "This is a Bill which is the promotion of the London County Council and others, submitted to the judgment of this House, and we leave it to the free judgment of the House; this is the evidence for and against; go into the Division Lobby." He would have used his influence probably—and quite rightly—with his friends to vote with him, and none of us would have objected, but, when it comes to saying to the people of this country, "No longer shall the House of Commons decide these matters, but His Majesty's Ministers will decide them in the Cabinet Star Chamber," then it is time to protest.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 295.

Beaumont, M. W.
Grace, John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ramsbotham, H.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Birchall, Major, Sir John Dearman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Remer, John R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Boyce, H. L.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bracken, B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar.& Wh'by)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Castlestewart, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Nevllie W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colman, N. C. D.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. D. (W'mortand)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thomson, Sir F.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Gainsbro)
Long, Major Eric
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lymington, Viscount
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Culverweil, C. T. (Bristol, West)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Train, J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Meller, R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wayland, Sir William A.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, J. A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)



Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Neill, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sir William Lane Mitchell and


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Sir George
Captain Hudson.


Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Compton, Joseph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bowen, J. W.
Cove, William G.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cowan, D. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Broad, Francis Alfred
Daggar, George


Alpass, J. H.
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dalton, Hugh


Amnion, Charles George
Bromley, J.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Angell, Norman
Brooke, W.
Day, Harry


Arnott, John
Brothers, M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Aske, Sir Robert
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dickson, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Ayles, Walter
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Duncan, Charles


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Buchanan, G.
Ede, James Chuter


Baker, Walter (Bristol, E.)
Burgess, F. G.
Edge, Sir William


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Edmunds, J. E.


Barnes, Alfred John
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barr, James
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Egan, W. H.


Batey, Joseph
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Eimley, Viscount


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Cameron, A. G.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Bellamy, Albert
Cape, Thomas
Freeman, Peter


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Charieton, H. C.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Chater, Daniel
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Benson, G.
Church, Major A. G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)


Birkett, W. Norman
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gillett, George M.




Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sanders, W. S.


Gossling, A. G.
McElwee, A.
Sandham, E.


Gould, F.
McEntee, V. L.
Sawyer, G. F.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mackinder, W.
Scott, James


Granville, E.
McKinlay, A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Gray, Milner
Mac Laren, Andrew
Sexton, James


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Groves, Thomas E.
McShane, John James
Sherwood, G. H.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shield, George William


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansfield, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
March, S.
Shinwell, E.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marcus, M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Markham, S. F.
Simmons, C. J.


Harbord, A.
Marley, J.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mathers, George
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Haycock, A. W.
Maxton, James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hayes, John Henry
Melville, J. B.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Messer, Fred
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Middleton, G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Millar, J. D.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Herriotts, J.
Mills, J. E.
Snell, Harry


Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hoffman, P. C.
Morley, Ralph
Sorensen, R.


Hopkin, Daniel
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Horrabin, J. F.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Stephen, Campbell


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hunter. Dr. Joseph
Mort, D. L.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Moses, J. J. H.
Strauss, G. R.


Isaacs, George
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sutton, J. E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Muff, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Johnston, Thomas
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Murnin, Hugh
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Naylor, T. E.
Tillett, Ben


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oldfield, J. R.
Toole, Joseph


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tout, W. J.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Townend, A. E.


Kelly, W. T.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Kennedy, Thomas
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Vaughan, D. J.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Kinley, J.
Paling, Wilfrid
Walkden, A. G.


Kirkwood, D.
Palmer, E. T.
Walker, J.


Knight, Holford
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wallace, H. W.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Perry, S. F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lang, Gordon
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wallers, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watkins, F. C.


Lathan, G.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Picton-Turberville, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Pole, Major D. G.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lawrence, Susan
Ponsonby, Arthur
White, H. G.


Lawson, John James
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Pybus, Percy John
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Leach, W.
Quibell, D. F. K.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lees, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Llndley, Fred W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Longbottom, A. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Longden, F.
Romerll, H. G.
Wise, E. F.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lowth, Thomas
Rowson, Guy
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lunn, William
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)



Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Scurr.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Third Reading put off for six months.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL. [By Order.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. MARCH: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Third Reading put off for six months.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Captain HENDERSON: In resuming my speech, which was interrupted by Private Business at Half-past Seven, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I wish to emphasise one point in connection with this Bill which has not been brought forward by any speaker on either side of the House this afternoon. We have had speakers on both sides of the House who have brought forward the interests of the various parties concerned under the Bill. We have had speakers who have brought forward very fairly the interests of the mandated territories and the interests of the Colonies; we have had speakers who have brought forward the interests of the native populations; but no speaker has brought before the House what is perhaps the most vital interest of all, namely, the interest of the British taxpayer, and especially the working-man taxpayer. The point that I wish to bring before the House is that, in the event of these developments being successful, and very considerable developmnts taking place in the mandated territories,
there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the orders that will ensue from this development will be carried out in the British Empire and in British factories. One of the main origins of this Bill is that it is largely intended to assist the depressed industries of this country, and that it will lead to a mitigation of the present unemployment. I am sure that the whole House, irrespective of party, will agree that we must take peculiar care to see that any orders that pass from any developments that may take place as a result of this Bill must be carried out in the British Empire, and preferably in this country; but there seems to me to be absolutely no provision in this Bill to ensure that, and, although, possibly, the right hon. Gentleman may be inclined to think that this is a mere Committee point, it is in my opinion a pont of such importance that it is worth bringing forward on the Second Beading. I trust before the Bill comes up again, he will be able to see his way to put in some words to make sure that this object is carried out, If the Zambesi Bridge, for instance, is thrown open to world competition and if, by some unfortunate chance, this important order goes to a foreign country, which by dint of using cheaper labour cuts out labour in this country, it would be in my opinion a calamity. It will be unfortunate if the interests of the British working man in these developments are lost sight of, and if they do not result in any help being given to the unemployed as a whole, I feel sure all hon. Members will agree that this is one of the most important sides of the Bill which, as the thing is worded, is overlooked. I trust the Under-Secretary of State will look into the point and see that in Committee something is put in to ensure that such shall be kept inside the British Umpire.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow. [Mr. Thomas.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

IRISH FREE STATE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

DEVELOPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEES AND GRANTS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—(1) to authorise the Treasury, after consultation With a committee appointed by them, to guarantee at any time within the period of three years from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, the payment of the principal of and the interest on any loans to be raised for the purpose of meeting capital expenditure to he incurred under schemes for development, reconstruction, or re-equipment in connection with public utility undertakings in Great Britain carried on under statutory powers by bodies of persons other than local authorities or such statutory bodies as are mentioned in paragraph (3) of this Resolution (including loans the proceeds of which may be applied in part towards the payment of interest on the loans during a limited period), and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any guarantees given under this provision;
Provided that the aggregate capital amount of the loans so guaranteed shall not exceed such amount as is sufficient to raise the sum of twenty-five million pounds;
(2) to authorise the Treasury, with the concurrence of the appropriate Government department and after consultation with the committee aforesaid, to make at any time within the period aforesaid grants for the purpose of assisting persons carrying on any such public utility undertakings as are mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Resolution in defraying, during a period not exceeding fifteen years from the raising of the loan, the interest payable on any loan (not being a loan in respect of which a guarantee has been given under the said paragraph (1) to be raised for such purpose as is mentioned in the said paragraph (1);
(3) to authorise the Minister of Labour, with the approval of the Treasury and on the recommendation of a committee appointed by him with the approval of the Treasury, to make at any time within the period aforesaid to any local authorities and any such statutory bodies as carry on undertakings under statutory powers otherwise
than for profit grants towards any expenditure to be incurred for the purpose of carrying out works of public utility calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom;
Provided that in the case of a grant made by way of assistance in defraying charges for interest and sinking fund in connection with a loan, payments on account of the grant shall not be made in respect of charges for any year after the expiration of thirty years from the raising of the loan;
(4) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) such sums as may he required for the purpose of grants under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Resolution; and
(b) any expenses, so far as not otherwise provided for, which may be incurred by the Treasury or the Minister of Labour in connection with the committees aforesaid;
(5) to make provisions ancillary to certain of the matters aforesaid.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. J. H. Thomas, Miss Bondfield, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Herbert Morrison, Sir Oswald Mosley and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

DEVELOPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEES AND GRANTS) BILL.

"to authorise the Treasury to guarantee certain loans to be raised in connection with public utility undertakings, and to authorise the giving of financial assistance in respect of expenditure incurred or loans raised for development works," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.